Our system and culture as a whole promotes these abuses of power by the government. I don't like them, I'm not sure how to fix it either. I do think Bush/Cheney were a little more gung-ho about changing the rules, but a lot of the policies they put in place have affected the culture of how any future president receives advice from the various organizations.
Obama talke about reversing some of the Bush policies, but they weren't really his top agenda. He talked about it more because he was running against the idea of Bush than anything else.
For example I think he could have taken a harder line on Guantanamo, but I don't think there is any ideal solution to that problem. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If a president releases those prisoners and just one of them kills another American soldier, let alone carries out an attack on American civilians, their political career will pretty much be over.
Edit: how exactly does anyone legitimately control a grand jury? Besides presenting valid evidence, I'm pretty sure there are a few laws against telling them to do anything, other than obey grand jury rules.
I understand your line of argumentation here, Irontruth. However, even the much trumpeted desire to close Guantanamo was not about ending the practices at Gitmo. It was about transferring that same detention regime to the US
My primary concern, however, relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional.
While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.
You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues.
This is further underscored by his follow-ups concerning the use of the prison, which make the narrative that Obama is fighting to end this kind of practice a tough sell:
As for the Grand Jury, I really have no idea who orders a Grand Jury to convene or who has authority over it and this is very relevant to the discussion, of course.
Nevertheless, the fact that these guys obtained through a FOIA information that the Grand Jury had been called two months before the crimes they allegedly participated in looks really weird to me. This kind of stuff should not happen, I suppose.
Well, even if the indefinite detention continued when the prisoners were brought to the US, there are significant advantages to being on US soil. All of the arguments about various Constitutional limitations not applying because they're on foreign soil go away.
I understand your line of argumentation here, Irontruth. However, even the much trumpeted desire to close Guantanamo was not about ending the practices at Gitmo. It was about transferring that same detention regime to the US
You have a point here. This might have made it more difficult (though not impossible) to establish and maintain indefinite detention directives or deny or put barriers for detainees to be assisted by lawyers. However, the fact that Obama later supported exactly those things makes me cynical in regard to his intentions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, YOU are in favor of handing bonuses to some for the situation of their birth (race and gender)
You're damned right I am. If someone is born into abject poverty to careless parents and an unsupportive social environment, you bet your ass I'm in favor of evening the playing field for them.
You would be, too, if you were half the Christian I'm sure you think you are.
but want to accuse ME, the one that says everyone should earn by their own merits, of lacking personal responsibility.
Yes. You have no idea what personal responsibility means. When you say, "I'm in favor of personal responsibility," what you really mean is, "You're on your own."
But that's fine. The world you feel comfortable in is shrinking. It will shrivel up around you until everything and everyone you see is hostile to your inhuman ideology.
Just comical right there.
You're the one trying to blame blacks and women for your inability to get a job.
Grow some humanity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "disposition matrix", on Wired
If drone strikes work so well, why do we need to keep using them? Could it possibly be that we are creating these militants because they dont like their families being blown up?
But no, please continue arguing with Andrew.
Our system and culture as a whole promotes these abuses of power by the government. I don't like them, I'm not sure how to fix it either. I do think Bush/Cheney were a little more gung-ho about changing the rules, but a lot of the policies they put in place have affected the culture of how any future president receives advice from the various organizations.
Obama talke about reversing some of the Bush policies, but they weren't really his top agenda. He talked about it more because he was running against the idea of Bush than anything else.
For example I think he could have taken a harder line on Guantanamo, but I don't think there is any ideal solution to that problem. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If a president releases those prisoners and just one of them kills another American soldier, let alone carries out an attack on American civilians, their political career will pretty much be over.
Edit: how exactly does anyone legitimately control a grand jury? Besides presenting valid evidence, I'm pretty sure there are a few laws against telling them to do anything, other than obey grand jury rules.
I understand your line of argumentation here, Irontruth. However, even the much trumpeted desire to close Guantanamo was not about ending the practices at Gitmo. It was about transferring that same detention regime to the US
** spoiler omitted **...
Let me try to clarify my position.
I agree with you on the human rights abuses.
I disagree with the root causes.
Gitmo wasn't closed because the Legislative branch (specifically the House of Representatives) denied the Executive branch the ability to spend money to do so.
I am aware of that, but a few of the members of the House, like Rep. Feingold, voted against it precisely because they perceived that the way it was planned might end up enshrining the practices at Gitmo instead of curtailing them. They might be wrong but, apparently, no evidence to the contrary was presented.
Grand Juries are often impaneled as a standing jury and will hear all sorts of issues during their existence. No one has authority over them in the sense you mean. A Grand Jury exist for the sole purpose of determining if there is enough evidence for a trial.
They are typically impaneled by the prosecutor who more or less runs them since they're not determining guilt or even facts and the general comment is that even a borderline incompetent prosecutor could get an indictment voted out against a ham sandwich.
I see, I didn't know exactly how it worked. Though I am aware this is not the proper way to learn about something, I went to wikipedia to check on them. It appears there're more criticisms on Grand Juries and the way they can be abused by prosecutors, because many of the protections usually granted to the investigated are more easily dealt with in their case. Is this true?
I don't know what the equivalent in Brazil is, and you might well not have anything like them since as memory serves you're not a common law system.
I don't think we have anything like that. And yes, you're right, our law system is quite uncommon. And, it is also a complete mess, though there are some good ideas in the mix, which allows it to function at a minimum level. Some of the worst things about the system is its morosity, and its bias against the poor. Even then, I'd say we have an advantage in the sense that our prisons are not private, so there is no economic incentive to jail people for petty stuff. On the other hand, conditions in our jails are, in most cases, horrid.
Our constitution has some good ideas. Curiously its present incarnation was created as a reaction to the military dictatorship established during an US-backed coup against a democratically elected president during the middle of the 20th century. It tries to prevent those excesses to ever coming back to haunt us again. It is a bloated document, though, and has been amended a number of times.
Feingold was a Senator. I know because he was MY senator.
|
When they earn them by the same standard as a white manI'm black. I'm working (two jobs actually). Are you saying I should never have gotten those jobs because they hired me because I'm black. Keep I mind that I would have no way of knowing if they did- it was never mention to me, I'm just glad I got these jobs. To my knowledge they hired the best person for the job. Should I just up and quit?
No, but if you KNEW they had a policy favoring you just for your color it would be dishonorable to work there if you actually believe in racial equality. The problem is in the businesses and the smaller number of overly vocal employees that push race.
|
|
Funny, YOU are in favor of handing bonuses to some for the situation of their birth (race and gender)You're damned right I am. If someone is born into abject poverty to careless parents and an unsupportive social environment, you bet your ass I'm in favor of evening the playing field for them.
You would be, too, if you were half the Christian I'm sure you think you are.
but want to accuse ME, the one that says everyone should earn by their own merits, of lacking personal responsibility.Yes. You have no idea what personal responsibility means. When you say, "I'm in favor of personal responsibility," what you really mean is, "You're on your own."
But that's fine. The world you feel comfortable in is shrinking. It will shrivel up around you until everything and everyone you see is hostile to your inhuman ideology.
Just comical right there.You're the one trying to blame blacks and women for your inability to get a job.
Grow some humanity.
Lol not even close to christian, offending them is my hobby
Damn right you are on your own, you want something earn it.I have a job, have since i was a child, never had anything i did not earn. Funny how me being against racism is bad, you are fully in favor of racist policy as long as the right group gets the better end.
|
|
When they earn them by the same standard as a white manDo you mean the part about having people of your same race and gender (not to mention friends and relatives) in most positions of power and authority regarding hiring decisions, or the part about societal presumed competence of your race and gender vs a vie everyone else?
Because all the studies say the same resume with a white male sounding name gets the job over the woman or non-white sounding name.
Look it up.
Wrong. American sounding name. Plenty of european sounding names get no better respect despite being very much white.
|
|
The "disposition matrix", on WiredIf drone strikes work so well, why do we need to keep using them? Could it possibly be that we are creating these militants because they dont like their families being blown up?
But no, please continue arguing with Andrew.
We are making the mistake of trying to be friend and enemy at the same time
|
|
No, but if you KNEW they had a policy favoring you just for your color it would be dishonorable to work there if you actually believe in racial equality.So he should quit?
I would. I would never take such a deal. he should do whatever he wants, but if you are OK with that kind of situation it says something about you as a person.
No, but if you KNEW they had a policy favoring you just for your color it would be dishonorable to work there if you actually believe in racial equality.So he should quit?
I would add as a caveat that I would have no idea why they hired me other than they thought I was the best person for the job.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol not even close to christian, offending them is my hobby
Offending everyone is your hobby.
Damn right you are on your own, you want something earn it.
So if you're born into a rich, white, well-educated family that nurtures you, feeds you well, hires tutors, hires a college counselor, pays for your college tuition, and supports you during your job search, you earned that job just as much as the kid born to poor inner-city parents who couldn't feed him enough, couldn't pay for college, and couldn't help him with his homework so that he had to fight for every opportunity he could get his hands on?
You're telling me that the first child had to fight just as hard for where he got as the second kid, if both of them end up equally successful?
Is that what you're saying?
Tell me.
You need to answer this. It is the crux of your entire worldview: that everyone starts with the same blank slate, and if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's. I want you to answer the question so that you can watch yourself type those words. I want you to see your own thoughts form on the screen in front of you. I want you to hit "Submit Post" knowing exactly what a pitiful monster your ideology has made you.
Or at least this is my understanding based on Andrew's quotes. I mean I would have thought that there were tons of qualified people out there capable of doing most jobs but apparently this isn't the case, in America applicants come in two colours: Qualified and minority.
It's pretty standard as far as Republican ideology goes.
a) Minorities aren't qualified for real American jobs*.
b) Companies are outsourcing real American jobs* to the countries minorities come from.
Somehow they've figured out a way to hold both of the above opinions in their head at the same time without their brains oozing out their ears.
* Real American jobs are all jobs that don't include demeaning physical labor that we couldn't live without, like janitorial work, trash pickup, landscape maintenance, or urban fast food preparation.
|
|
No, but if you KNEW they had a policy favoring you just for your color it would be dishonorable to work there if you actually believe in racial equality.So he should quit?Obviously only good old natural whites should have jobs in America. If you ever see a minority working in any position you know the employer had to compromise.
Or at least this is my understanding based on Andrew's quotes. I mean I would have thought that there were tons of qualified people out there capable of doing most jobs but apparently this isn't the case, in America applicants come in two colours: Qualified and minority.
Then you have a major reading comprehension problem. Any qualified person should have an equal shot at a job or school regardless of race or gender, not a special bonus for being the "right kind"
|
|
Lol not even close to christian, offending them is my hobbyOffending everyone is your hobby.
Damn right you are on your own, you want something earn it.So if you're born into a rich, white, well-educated family that nurtures you, feeds you well, hires tutors, hires a college counselor, pays for your college tuition, and supports you during your job search, you earned that job just as much as the kid born to poor inner-city parents who couldn't feed him enough, couldn't pay for college, and couldn't help him with his homework so that he had to fight for every opportunity he could get his hands on?
You're telling me that the first child had to fight just as hard for where he got as the second kid, if both of them end up equally successful?
Is that what you're saying?
Tell me.
You need to answer this. It is the crux of your entire worldview: that everyone starts with the same blank slate, and if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's. I want you to answer the question so that you can watch yourself type those words. I want you to see your own thoughts form on the screen in front of you. I want you to hit "Submit Post" knowing exactly what a pitiful monster your ideology has made you.
And if you are born to a rich black or hispanic family you deserve extra benefits beyond a poor white kid from a crap school for nothing more than the color of your skin? Economics are a real disadvantage you can argue. But who needs more help in this world, the son of someone like Colon Powel or the son of a white Appalachian dirt poor farmer? That you would tell a black person they DESERVE more for there color, even if from a wealthy background, and kick a poor white for being "privileged" shows your morally corrupt ideology. Is that not the crux of YOUR world veiw, that some just for their color deserve more or less?
|
|
Or at least this is my understanding based on Andrew's quotes. I mean I would have thought that there were tons of qualified people out there capable of doing most jobs but apparently this isn't the case, in America applicants come in two colours: Qualified and minority.It's pretty standard as far as Republican ideology goes.
a) Minorities aren't qualified for real American jobs*.
b) Companies are outsourcing real American jobs* to the countries minorities come from.
Somehow they've figured out a way to hold both of the above opinions in their head at the same time without their brains oozing out their ears.
* Real American jobs are all jobs that don't include demeaning physical labor that we couldn't live without, like janitorial work, trash pickup, landscape maintenance, or urban fast food preparation.
Not republican, but the truth is more like earn it, not cry you were not givien life on a silver platter. Man up and work for it.
This would indeed be the question.
No, but if you KNEW they had a policy favoring you just for your color it would be dishonorable to work there if you actually believe in racial equality.So he should quit?Obviously only good old natural whites should have jobs in America. If you ever see a minority working in any position you know the employer had to compromise.
Or at least this is my understanding based on Andrew's quotes. I mean I would have thought that there were tons of qualified people out there capable of doing most jobs but apparently this isn't the case, in America applicants come in two colours: Qualified and minority.
Not republican, but the truth is more like earn it, not cry you were not givien life on a silver platter. Man up and work for it.
Yeah guys, MAN UP!
I mean what kind of lazy bum has the gall to be BORN NON-WHITE and/or underprivileged?!Can't you see that everyone successful earned it through hard work and gumption, and everyone who isn't successful is a victim of their own ineptitude and doesn't deserve our tablescraps?
And if you are born to a rich black or hispanic family you deserve extra benefits beyond a poor white kid from a crap school for nothing more than the color of your skin? Economics are a real disadvantage you can argue. But who needs more help in this world, the son of someone like Colon Powel or the son of a white Appalachian dirt poor farmer? That you would tell a black person they DESERVE more for there color, even if from a wealthy background, and kick a poor white for being "privileged" shows your morally corrupt ideology. Is that not the crux of YOUR world veiw, that some just for their color deserve more or less?Lol not even close to christian, offending them is my hobbyOffending everyone is your hobby.
Damn right you are on your own, you want something earn it.So if you're born into a rich, white, well-educated family that nurtures you, feeds you well, hires tutors, hires a college counselor, pays for your college tuition, and supports you during your job search, you earned that job just as much as the kid born to poor inner-city parents who couldn't feed him enough, couldn't pay for college, and couldn't help him with his homework so that he had to fight for every opportunity he could get his hands on?
You're telling me that the first child had to fight just as hard for where he got as the second kid, if both of them end up equally successful?
Is that what you're saying?
Tell me.
You need to answer this. It is the crux of your entire worldview: that everyone starts with the same blank slate, and if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's. I want you to answer the question so that you can watch yourself type those words. I want you to see your own thoughts form on the screen in front of you. I want you to hit "Submit Post" knowing exactly what a pitiful monster your ideology has made you.
The problem is that you think the playing field is inherently fair, when it isn't.
The Appalachian dirt farmer who is white and has served time in prison has an easier time getting a job than a black Appalachian dirt farmer who is black and never been to prison.
|
|
...And if you are born to a rich black or hispanic family you deserve extra benefits beyond a poor white kid from a crap school for nothing more than the color of your skin? Economics are a real disadvantage you can argue. But who needs more help in this world, the son of someone like Colon Powel or the son of a white Appalachian dirt poor farmer? That you would tell a black person they DESERVE more for there color, even if from a wealthy background, and kick a poor white for being "privileged" shows your morally corrupt ideology. Is that not the crux of YOUR world veiw, that some just for their color deserve more or less?Lol not even close to christian, offending them is my hobbyOffending everyone is your hobby.
Damn right you are on your own, you want something earn it.So if you're born into a rich, white, well-educated family that nurtures you, feeds you well, hires tutors, hires a college counselor, pays for your college tuition, and supports you during your job search, you earned that job just as much as the kid born to poor inner-city parents who couldn't feed him enough, couldn't pay for college, and couldn't help him with his homework so that he had to fight for every opportunity he could get his hands on?
You're telling me that the first child had to fight just as hard for where he got as the second kid, if both of them end up equally successful?
Is that what you're saying?
Tell me.
You need to answer this. It is the crux of your entire worldview: that everyone starts with the same blank slate, and if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's. I want you to answer the question so that you can watch yourself type those words. I want you to see your own thoughts form on the screen in front of you. I want you to hit "Submit Post" knowing exactly what a pitiful monster your ideology has made you.
Yet the majority of the real problem is economic not race. life is not fair but more racism will not fix that.
And if you are born to a rich black or hispanic family you deserve extra benefits beyond a poor white kid from a crap school for nothing more than the color of your skin?
Then you luck out and get a little bit of a boost.
Affirmative action isn't perfect. If you're from a disadvantaged minority racial or ethnic group but happen to be well-off, you'll come out a bit ahead. Likewise, if you're from an advantaged group (like white people) but happen to be dirt poor, you won't get a hand up. And that's a shame for those negatively affected. But: tough cookies. The end result is a significant increase in social and economic equality, and some of us white people can sacrifice a little bit of our comfortable economic security so that the playing field is leveled.
You can disagree, but we don't care. If you try to hold the position that a poor white kid is just as bad off as a poor black kid, you'll get laughed at (just like you are right now) because you're wrong.
So, again, suck it up and grow some humanity.
Economics are a real disadvantage you can argue. But who needs more help in this world, the son of someone like Colon Powel or the son of a white Appalachian dirt poor farmer?
The son of a white Appalachian economically-disadvantaged farmer.
That you would tell a black person they DESERVE more for there color, even if from a wealthy background,
The deserve equal opportunity. And unless we do something about it, most of them won't get it. That's worth fighting for, and that's worth sacrificing for.
and kick a poor white for being "privileged" shows your morally corrupt ideology.
You've lost all credibility to call anything morally corrupt. No one cares what you have to say about morality. You don't have a firm grasp of what the word even means.
Is that not the crux of YOUR world veiw, that some just for their color deserve more or less?
They deserve to have the same opportunity everyone else does. Most of them don't get that opportunity, so we're going to even the playing field until that gets fixed. You can help, or you can get the hell out of the way.
|
if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's.
When I worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store/gas station, I watched this "homeless" man over the course of a couple of years, and in that time, he managed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and get a job. He was still homeless after finding said job, but he came in every morning and used the restroom to bathe himself just before his shift as a Security Guard. He then used some of his money to buy a bicycle so he didn't have to ride the bus to and from work...
|
|
And if you are born to a rich black or hispanic family you deserve extra benefits beyond a poor white kid from a crap school for nothing more than the color of your skin?Then you luck out and get a little bit of a boost.
Affirmative action isn't perfect. If you're from a disadvantaged minority racial or ethnic group but happen to be well-off, you'll come out a bit ahead. Likewise, if you're from an advantaged group (like white people) but happen to be dirt poor, you won't get a hand up. And that's a shame for those negatively affected. But: tough cookies. The end result is a significant increase in social and economic equality, and some of us white people can sacrifice a little bit of our comfortable economic security so that the playing field is leveled.
You can disagree, but we don't care. If you try to hold the position that a poor white kid is just as bad off as a poor black kid, you'll get laughed at (just like you are right now) because you're wrong.
So, again, suck it up and grow some humanity.
Economics are a real disadvantage you can argue. But who needs more help in this world, the son of someone like Colon Powel or the son of a white Appalachian dirt poor farmer?The son of a white Appalachian economically-disadvantaged farmer.
That you would tell a black person they DESERVE more for there color, even if from a wealthy background,The deserve equal opportunity. And unless we do something about it, most of them won't get it. That's worth fighting for, and that's worth sacrificing for.
and kick a poor white for being "privileged" shows your morally corrupt ideology.You've lost all credibility to call anything morally corrupt. No one cares what you have to say about morality. You don't have a firm grasp of what the word even means.
Is that not the crux of YOUR world veiw, that some just for their color deserve more or less?They deserve to have the same opportunity...
Yes, because i think it is wrong to harm one you call privilaged to give to another you believe deserves it more i lack morality. christ why do you not just push to make crime agianst whites legal, we deserve it after all, all being wealthy and given everything and all. You are a racsit as much as the ones under white sheets you just hate a group you are allowed to.
|
|
if someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's.When I worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store/gas station, I watched this "homeless" man over the course of a couple of years, and in that time, he managed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and get a job. He was still homeless after finding said job, but he came in every morning and used the restroom to bathe himself just before his shift as a Security Guard. He then used some of his money to buy a bicycle so he didn't have to ride the bus to and from work...
If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and all
Yes, because i think it is wrong to harm one you call privilaged to give to another you believe deserves it more i lack morality.
You'd prefer to keep the status quo: that being born white means you'll probably enjoy a better life than if you were born black.
So yeah, you lack morality.
christ why do you not just push to make crime agianst whites legal, we deserve it after all, all being wealthy and given everything and all. You are a racsit as much as the ones under white sheets you just hate a group you are allowed to.
Is that what you're reduced to? You have no other explanation for my stance other than that I'm racist against myself.
Nice. You definitely have a solid argument there.
If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and all
Actually, he should have access to a range of programs designed to help him get back on his feet - counseling, career advice, shelter, etc. We as a society and a nation gain nothing by allowing our homeless to continue to suffer on the streets when they could become productive with a little help.
It's crazy what a little bit of assistance and support can do for an individual. The homeless often feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised. We can do so much better for them, and we can help them to do so much better for themselves.
|
|
Yes, because i think it is wrong to harm one you call privilaged to give to another you believe deserves it more i lack morality.You'd prefer to keep the status quo: that being born white means you'll probably enjoy a better life than if you were born black.
So yeah, you lack morality.
christ why do you not just push to make crime agianst whites legal, we deserve it after all, all being wealthy and given everything and all. You are a racsit as much as the ones under white sheets you just hate a group you are allowed to.Is that what you're reduced to? You have no other explanation for my stance other than that I'm racist against myself.
Nice. You definitely have a solid argument there.
I would like to see an answer that doesn't involve harming another. Better to do nothing than cause more harm.
Self hating is nothing new. "white guilt" is a mark of moral superiority now, especially among those not harmed by the racist policy they want to use to "even it out"|
|
If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and allActually, he should have access to a range of programs designed to help him get back on his feet - counseling, career advice, shelter, etc. We as a society and a nation gain nothing by allowing our homeless to continue to suffer on the streets when they could become productive with a little help.
It's crazy what a little bit of assistance and support can do for an individual. The homeless often feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised. We can do so much better for them, and we can help them to do so much better for themselves.
With a hand up not a hand out you are right.
Yet the majority of the real problem is economic not race. life is not fair but more racism will not fix that.
Please explain to me how white offenders getting more jobs than black non-offenders is not racism. Because right now, you are saying that racism is better than something else with the expressed goal of trying to create equality.
Feingold was a Senator. I know because he was MY senator.
Ok, my mistake. Nevertheless, the point stands. :)
With a hand up not a hand out you are right.If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and allActually, he should have access to a range of programs designed to help him get back on his feet - counseling, career advice, shelter, etc. We as a society and a nation gain nothing by allowing our homeless to continue to suffer on the streets when they could become productive with a little help.
It's crazy what a little bit of assistance and support can do for an individual. The homeless often feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised. We can do so much better for them, and we can help them to do so much better for themselves.
What's the difference, from the point of view of someone providing the hand?
|
|
What's the difference, from the point of view of someone providing the hand?With a hand up not a hand out you are right.If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and allActually, he should have access to a range of programs designed to help him get back on his feet - counseling, career advice, shelter, etc. We as a society and a nation gain nothing by allowing our homeless to continue to suffer on the streets when they could become productive with a little help.
It's crazy what a little bit of assistance and support can do for an individual. The homeless often feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised. We can do so much better for them, and we can help them to do so much better for themselves.
Give a man a fish/teach him to fish. Giving makes you feel like you made a difference, better to make a real difference
|
|
Yet the majority of the real problem is economic not race. life is not fair but more racism will not fix that.Please explain to me how white offenders getting more jobs than black non-offenders is not racism. Because right now, you are saying that racism is better than something else with the expressed goal of trying to create equality.
It might very well be because of racism, yet more racism is not the answer
If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and allif someone is less successful than you, it's their fault and no one else's.When I worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store/gas station, I watched this "homeless" man over the course of a couple of years, and in that time, he managed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and get a job. He was still homeless after finding said job, but he came in every morning and used the restroom to bathe himself just before his shift as a Security Guard. He then used some of his money to buy a bicycle so he didn't have to ride the bus to and from work...
And if he isn't?
Give a man a fish/teach him to fish. Giving makes you feel like you made a difference, better to make a real differenceWhat's the difference, from the point of view of someone providing the hand?With a hand up not a hand out you are right.If he is white that is all he should get, being so privileged and allActually, he should have access to a range of programs designed to help him get back on his feet - counseling, career advice, shelter, etc. We as a society and a nation gain nothing by allowing our homeless to continue to suffer on the streets when they could become productive with a little help.
It's crazy what a little bit of assistance and support can do for an individual. The homeless often feel abandoned and utterly disenfranchised. We can do so much better for them, and we can help them to do so much better for themselves.
Trevor is taught how to fish, but he can't afford warm clothing and he often gets sick while sitting on the jetty, trying to keep food on his plate.
Ontop of that Trevor could only afford a small hand line, not a big fishing rod that would let him catch bigger fish further out and give him something he can sell, making him self sufficient.
Would providing him with warm clothes and a decent fishing rod be a hand up or a hand out?
How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!
Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.
You have expressed my thoughts better than I possibly could.