In all seriousness guys, we need to stop this. We are on a sports site. We should be discussing sports. We can all agree some bad things happened in the past. Let's all be genuinely happy that we live in a better time and move forward. I'm finished with this thread and I'm moving on to sports. I wish you all the best of luck and happiness.
Most balck people are good in sports but their not always smart enough to be a headcoach. Baclk people DOMINATE every sport accept hockey and tennis and golf accept for Tiger Woods. You must be rasist becuz black people are always winning in sports just look at the US olympic team in teh olympics where mostly black people are winning the awards! So black people may NOT be teh best for a coach job but they are teh best when it comes to good play on teh football field or basketball and baseball as well as teh olympics and lots of other sports.
Maybe it's different where you live, but when we turned 18 we are not just handed a card. We have to go register. Just as it is your right to go take a drivers test. You are not just given either of those, but it is your god given right when you are born. You can choose to do neither one just as you can have both rights stripped.
Wazzu, here in Florida, in Wisconsin where I originally got my license and I'm sure many other states across this country, you can get your permit at 15. You have to take classes to learn how to drive. Those classes teach you the rules and take you on the road for practice. After you've had your permit for a certain amount of months or you turn 16 you can take your drivers test. When you are 18 you can take your drivers test without classes or your permit. The test consists of 2 parts, a written and a road test. If you do not pass both test, you do not get your license. To get your voters ID, you have to be 18. All you have to do is apply. So that is why I say that driving is not a right, it is a privilage. You can't just apply for a license like you can apply for a voters ID. there are a million different things that you can lose your license for including not paying child support which has nothog at all to do with driving. Pretty much the only thing you can lose your voting rights for is being convicted of a felony. That is the other reason why driving is a privilage and voting is a right. I can't believe that you truly see them in the same light.
Yes some animals are raised for slaughter. Some people prefer a variety of meat, and those people who choose not to hunt for their food should not look down upon those who do with contempt or saying hunting is "icky". You choose to eat meat that was killed by others regardless if you deem it slaughtered.
I said from the start that if your hunting for food then I really have no problem with it.
You are talking about food chain again with the deer to the a pack of wolves, wolves hunt for their meat. And obviously you have not been hunting if you think there is no sport in it. Do more advanced guns make it easier, yes but you are ignorant if you think you just go out, look through a scope, point and bang that animal is dead. And no, there is no wrong place, wrong time for another animal to kill a human, it is our choice and we risk it. When someone gets malled by a cougar or gets bit by a shark etc, that is their choice to put themselves in a situation where that is possible. Pre that fire and tools, humans had no choice. They had to put themselves in a situation where they could end up dying.
No I haven't been hunting and will never go hunting. I find no enjoyment in killing animals or even being in nature. I like the city. Either way, when you have high powered weapons and scopes where you can kill an animal from a football field away, it's not sport IMO. If you sneak up on an animal with a knife and kill it then it's sport IMO. It's a challange. I'm not saying there is no challenge what so ever to hunting with a rifle but it gets easier all the time. It's just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
As for the "wealthy" paying their fair share. How is that their fair share? Just because they have more money than someone does not mean it is fair for them to have pay a more pecentage of their check than someone else. It should be the same percentage all across the board. Believe it or not there are lots of people who became wealthy because of hard work, not sure why some people are being punished for being successful in life. One lady decides to work hard, go to college and get a good job gets punished while a teenage drop out decides to keep popping out kids gets rewarded.
Yeah, welfare is such a reward, especially for the kids There are people in this country, in the world, who simply do not have the intelligence to make a lot of money. It's not about education or work ethic, it's about them not being smart enough to get a great paying job. Even more so, we simply can't all be rich. there are going to be poor people, there are going to be low paying jobs. You right wingers always want to talk about punishing the rich for thier success but you're OK with punishing the poor for their lack of success no matter why they are not successful. If it were possible that we could ALL be successful then I would agree but we can't be. Someone has to cook at McDonald's, someone has to run the McDonald's, someone has to do accounting work at McDonald's Corp offices and someone has to be the CEO of McDonald's. Someone has to work at Walmart, someone has to run the Walmart, someone has to do accounting for Walmart and someone has to be the CEO of Walmart. Someone has to be the officer, someone has to be the sargent, someone has to the the chief and someone has to be the commissioner of the police department. Someone has to clean the school, someone has to teach our children, someone has to be the principal and someone has to be the superintendant. Someone has to clean the Chevy plant, someone has to work the assembly line, someone has to run the plant and someone has to be Chevy's president. the point being not everyone can be a CEO or an accountant, someone has to break their back and others have to supervise them. someone has to have the chitt job and not everyone can be the CEO. So the people who were lucky enough to be able to put themselves in a position where they can make a lot of money pay more into the system and the people who were not lucky enough to put themselves in that position pay less of their money into the system. I'm not going to feel bad for a person making a million dollars a year having to give $400,000 of it to the federal government when the vast majority of us won't make even that $400,000 in 4 years. Not only can you survive on that $600,000, you can live very well on it. You can feel sorry for them if you want to. I would personally have no problem giving up that $400,000 if I would be bringing home $600,000. I wouldn't think of it as being punished but I would think of paying 15% of my income on $35,000 as being punished if someone making $3.5 million is also paying 15%.
And not to point fingers, but when there was a black man who was successful he didn't exactly help the black cause. Douglas wrote a book, then.....?
Douglass actually started a news paper to continue fighting for the cause. He also fought for women's rights so it was about all oppression, not just for black people. He fought for black people to be able to fight in the Civil War. He also got into politics. He didn't just write a book and wash his hands.
MLK got enough respect through white america that he was starting to make a change then he was assassinated and left guys like Malcolm X, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to spit on his grave with their antics.
By the time King died he and Malcom X were actually friends and shared a lot of the same ideas. His radical behavior was gone and he pushed for peace between the races. Then the Nation had him assasinated. To say Malcolm X spit on King's grave is ignorant to the facts.
I already covered that. There are a small minority of people who feel superior to them. There is a small minority of people like that in America and every country in the world. We Americans are not much different from everybody else in the world.
Saying that there are a small minority of people who feel superior to them is not telling me how they are treated as a whole in society. Either way there are only about 100,000 Jews in Germany, a country with 81 million people. Again, it's not the same thing as blacks in America.
#1 THEY WERE NEARLY WIPED OUT IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME!!! The blacks were not!
I know that Jews in Germany were almost wiped out. Jews in German occupied countries were almost wiped out. But I'm looking around the net and I can't seem to find any information on Nazi occupation of Isreal where there were hundres of thousands, maybe millions of Jews. They didn't occupy North America where there were plenty of jews. Wiping out the Jews in the area is not almost wiping out Jews.
#2 For the third time- The Jews were enslaved for TWICE as long as blacks! This is BEFORE AND ON TOP OF the Holocaust!
For the 3rd time or what ever they were not enslaved here. It's a different situation. You keep trying to argue that Africans enslaved Africans and since human life started in African it's only your assumption that Jews were enslaved before black people. So you are actually wrong on both #1 and #2. No surprise!!
Still missing my point? Let me spell it out for you- THE AMERICAN SLAVERY ISSUE WAS ROOTED IN AFRICA. THOSE PEOPLE WERE ALREADY ENSLAVED IN AFRICA. AFRICA IS THE ROOT OF THE AMERICAN SLAVERY PROBLEM. IT STARTED THERE.
OK, I can yell too. THE AMERICAN SLAVE PROBLEM STARTED IN ENGLAND, NOT IN AFRICA. THE START OF SLAVERY IN THIS COUNTRY WAS THE ENGLISH ENSLAVING THE IRISH AND BRINGING THEM HERE FOR SLAVE LABOR. WHITE ON WHITE SLAVERY WAS THE START OF IT IN THIS COUNTRY. WITH YOUR SHAMROCK AVITAR I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT!!!
For the record, slavery is as old as time and still occurs today. Slaves were usually the people of a country you just conquered. What made slavery different in this country was that it was about color. Only one race was being oppressed.
We all are clusters of cells dumb***. It is LIFE that seperates us from all other "clusters of cells". That is an innocent cluster of cells with LIFE.
There goes the name calling. You can call me what ever you want it's only going to make you look ridiculous. It is a cluster of cells inside a fully functioning, stand alone cluster of cells and you have no right to tell that fully functioning cluster of cells what they can or cannot do with what's growing in their body. It's their business. When it's in your wife or daughter it's your business. Mind your business.
The baby can go up for adoption if the mother does not want it or cannot care for it. There are tens of thousands of people on waiting lists to adopt babies.
and again, you don't have to carry that baby. You can't force a person to carry a child to term if they don't want to. It's not your business. I assume you are a guy. You will never have to go through child birth. You can't tell a woman that she needs to go through child birth if she doesn't want to.
Who are we to judge whether or not that baby will have a good life or not?
Plenty of people have awful lives and when a young person who's not ready for motherhood, who's "boy"friend isn't ready for fatherhood, when they are not and may not ever be financially stable, THEY can decide whether THEY believe that the child can have a good life. I'm not assuming the child will have a bad life, I'm just saying the pregnant woman has to make that decision for herself.
Who are we to ASSUME the baby would not want to live?
We aren't assuming whether the baby wants to live or not. How do you even twist it in your head to ask that question. The MOTHER is the person who decides whether the baby lives or dies.
How would you feel if that baby was YOU? YOUR FAMILY MEMBER? Think about it for a minute...
If the baby were me I wouldn't be thinking at all, I'd be dead. I wouldn't know one way or another. I can tell you though that when I was 20 I got a girl pregnant, she was 18. I wasn't ready for kids, she certainly wasn't ready for kids. She decided to get an abortion and I paid for it. I have never EVER had one second thought about that. We were not ready for that. We weren't even really a couple. One mistake could have very well wrecked both of our lives. So I don't need to think about it. I've been through it and I know that we made the right decision. I haven't talked to her since a couple of months after she had the abortion and I don't know how she feels about it today but I know how greatful I am that we didn't have a child together at that point in our lives.
I'll say though that abortion arguments from Christians are such hypocrasy. A mother loses her teenaged son and everyone tells her "God wanted another angel", "It was his time", "He's in a better place". You believe that God dicates when we live and die. God says that it was the time of the little girl who caught the stray bullet, God dictates that the old man has a heart attack, God says that PFC Williams dies by a road bomb explosion but PFC Smith lives from the same explosion. But you can't see that if God wanted a fetus to be born it will be born. Obviously if God dictates whether we live or die and he takes us when he is ready for us then the fetus was never meant to be born. I don't know if any of you believe in psychics. I don't but I know someone who went to a psychic last year and had an erie experience. The psychic told her that her brother was here. She said she didn't have a brother. the psychic said no you have a brother, he looks just like you, he says his name is Christian. He said to tell her mother to stop beating herself up, he is where he is supposed to be. She went home and talked to her mother about it. Her mother said that when the daughter was 3, she was pregnant and she had to abort the baby because she would have likley died if she carried the baby to term. She was upset about it but if the pshycic was right (again not saying she was but it's pretty creepy) then God's plan for Christian was never to be born. Again, I'm not sure why Christian's belief that God dictates who lives and who dies doesn't extend to fetuses. If it's meant for that fetus to live, the mother won't abort it.
This issue begins with irresposibility the vast majority of the time. The baby is the one who suffers for it. Abortion is a shortcut out of irresponsibility.
You're right. It is mostly out of irresponsibility. So of course the right thing to do is bring a child into the world with irresposible parents. People to young, too dumb, or both to raise a child. Yeah, the child won't suffer in that situation!!
HR DOES NOT tell a potential candidate they were not hired for this reason. They simply tell them they were not selected.
My point is that most people who tell this story say that they or the person was told they were not hired because they needed to hire a black person. Not saying that was your company and their situation. But if your company felt they needed more diversity then that is your company's business. They can take it upon themselves as a company to want diversity and strive for diversity. No one is forcing them to hire black people, only to be fair about the hiring process.
You're fooling no one. It was totally to go after the orgs under the Church, and find a way to opress them to make their constituents happy. It was a non-issue as all women had affordable access or free access to birth control (you know creating a law for something supposedly not a big deal like a voter id law does in your opinion). The $9.00 the prescription costs at Target or Wal Mart is cheaper than a co-pay. No one opposed the free birth control provided with tax dollars either. The opposition cam when the Dems wanted to force religious orgs to provide it in their insurance plan b/c they didn't like there being Americans not sharing their ideology.
I am not a religious person but my last job, we were bought out by a religious organization. the point being that there are plenty of people who work for faith based organizations who don't share the organizations faith. Not supplying birth control alienates the women who work for faith based organizaions. It is forcing their beliefs on their employees. The Dems wanted to have ALL insurance companies provide free birth control. They were not forcing the orgs to supply anything. The Republicans made it a religious and political issue, not the Dems. the faith based orgs were not being forced to do anything, all they had to do was stay out of it. But they would rather force their believes on their employees.
I already pointed out "the claims of women where doctors claimed their child just being a bundle of cells". It happened to Alveida King. Lying to minorities in order to kill minorities.
I believe it is just a cluster of cells. I would have to believe that the doctor believes that it is just a cluster of cells. It's when you know that something isn't true but you say it like it is true that you are lying.
Sure they are. The gov always makes things more afforadable, especially when people can get badly hurt and then get the insurance plan causing the insurance company to pay some major Bills. Something like that will never drive up the costs to consumers - lol
I didn't say the plan was going to work, I'm only pointing out what the plan is suppsoed to be.
Actually, the debt debates is one of the top issues and the key focus of the Tea Party. Yet the Tea Party is the one they try t olabel as whack jobs the most.
Well there's something to be said about the shoe fitting. Look, I only know one person who I know for sure associates himself with the Tea Party. He's an awful person. He spews hatred and bigrotry. He's the kind of hypocrit that downs welfare and unemployment even though he has used them in the past and pretty recently. He's a gun rights advocate to the point of buying his 10 year old daughter a pistol. He'll probably end up getting shot with it. He thinks that no one should be taxed. I try not to talk to him much but I don't recall a single thing ever coming out of his mouth that I agree with politically. Politics aside though, like I said, he's not a good person. Politically, his ideas are basically Tea Party talking points at this point in his life. I know that I can't demonize all Teabaggers based on him but a lot of them seem to have the same mindset. Also, we have a Teabagger in our governor's office. It didn't take long for him to even alienate the Republicans of the state.
VERY true. I am not a member of the Tea Party, nor am I a member of Occupy Wall Street. With that being said, I find it hilarious the leftist media tried to label the Tea Party as nutjobs while they had very peaceful demonstrations. They also tried to label them as racist. There were black Tea Party Members as well as every race.
Meanwhile, the Occupy Wall Streeters gained the support of the media. They broke laws with their demonstrations, rapes occured at their campouts, cops were assaulted and guns were found.
The original protestors of Occupy were not violent. After the movement went mainstream the wrong kinds of people started showing up. I won't defend their violence, it's ridiculous no matter where it comes from. I will say though that there are always more arrests from protesters at the DNC than the RNC. The Tea Party may be able to say they weren't violent but the right can't make that claim at all.
and yes tampa i agree to a point, there are some people that just arent smart enough to make enough money to get thru in life but its when them same people have a kid then have kid #2 then 3 then 4 is where i and i think most people have a problem! and it seems like you think that alot of people dont take advantage of the welfare system. hell didnt someone win the lotto and still collected welfare? thats how shotty the system is ran! and for the whole education thing, there were porr people in the 20s,30s,40s and so on and so on, but yet kids are dumber now then they were back then, its kids dont apply their selfs now a days is the bigeest problem and i think the biggest part of that is the family has gone to crap in todays america! whats the % of black children born to single family homes? whats the white %? what was it say 30 years ago?. but yeah maybe that has nothing to do with it my man!
and also wasnt the tea party started when bush was in office?
If it was it was a very well kept secrete. I may be wrong but it seems to me the tea party took root as an aftermath of Sara Palin's nomination for VP. That's when the in thing to do was simply bash the people currently in office while essentially providing no viable solutions to problems.
i dont deny that fox is right wing, but fox is not the whole media, they are a very small part of it!! and since when did libs have their own network??? its called msnbc!! now maybe u agree with them and thats fine but that doesnt mean they aint left leaning my man!! come on buddy! but i find it funny, we heard about waterboarding everynite on nbc,cbs and abc, we heard about gitmo everynite! we heard how obama and holder wanted to give the people at gitmo trials here in america, now they are over ther hitting us citizens with bombs from drones and we dont really hear a peep outta them networks , wonder why? now for the record, iam fine with them killing people that are in terrorist camp, but what i find funny, is where is those people due process that they moaned about for the gitmo people? oh well, it is what it is!!
bulldog, your kinda funny, you talk about tunnel vision? as if thats not what you have, iam sure you see yourself as some open minded free thinker, my guess , you are the same closed minded party thinker you rail against! in my eyes, a tunnel thinker is anyone that aligns themselfs with a single party! but then again, its just my guess!
MSNBC, NBC, ABC CBS all present the news pretty straight forward. Granted these networks at times tend to lean slightly to the left of center. Fox, however, is egregiously right wing. There is only ever one opinion presented on Fox and that's the far right's. Anything that disagrees with their philosophy is mocked and poked fun at.
^^^^ hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, wow!! that takes the cake right there! yes we all know how far right that bob beckle and alan colmes are!! and juan williams, oh wait thats the guy that those "straight forward" networks called the happy negro!! oh yeah didnt cbs get caught fixing documents?? hahahaha , what a crock of crap!!