Rape isn't about sex . . .
Monday, September 28, 2009 6:53 AM
Research has shown that the lack of 2 for 1 dance specials at stripclubs increases the number of rape victims by a whopping 44%. Rapists basically thought long and hard about how to fight back against unaffordability of dance prices. Bingo! Rape the hottie next door. Hey, the public schools have mandatory courses in logic.
It is tempting to think well then rape is about unaffordability of dance prices. Well partly.
A more insidious reality is rapists were majorly pissed at unaffordability of a basic law school education. The solution was obvious to the rapist. Rape the hottie next door or the little old lady down the street---I mean denial of a law school education and these rapists be taking off the gloves and putting on the condoms.
Hopefully, you've learned rape isn't about sex just as robbery isn't about money. What is robbery about? Easy. It is about sex. I mean how is a young man supposed to afford the unaffordability of dances unless he be resorting to robbery or romance? Yes, yes, drug dealing was/is an option, but just say no made it less macho.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
71 comments
Who knows a little honesty in this fraud country might be a breath of fresh air for them as well. :) Th those college kids who wrongfully got accused of rape by that stripper and others like 'em and their families may greatly appreciate it. Heck, those families may no longer be idiotic flag wavers after the hell they got put thru. Take the pants of the supposed justice system. Rape is supposed to be a serious crime and not a big joke to generate new prisoners and fees for lawyers and a sword for an pissed off girlfriend or wife or feminist hoard.
Generally rape is all about the sex. Want to engage in idiotic lies, then it becomes more of a game. He said. She said. Government says. Feminist says. Whatever. Besides, if it just about the violence as some evil people and imbeciles would assert, then wonderful----let's see physical proof of the injury. No proof---no case. And, it gets even better. No rape shield BS. No little honey has to have her name front and center just like any other victim of violent crime and like the accused. Keyword *accused*. Sexual predator list? Forget about it. It is just a crime of violence and as such no special BS----treat it like any other crime of violence.
Let's move on to how would you feel if your daughter or son were raped? Depends on who raped 'em and the violence if any involved! DUH! :) Also, I'd be more concerned that my son would be raped by this god awful system and a bunch of feminists lowlifes.
Yes, for the sensitive----I did refer to this as a fraud country. The above link should direct to a book by a former cop. He writes about a 12 year old boy who threw a pecan at a bus. The kid gets charged with throwing a *deadly missile*. Yep, a *deadly missile*. Dang, I remember seeing young boys throwing pine cones at each and one at the school bus. It was a lot fun to watch. Even the bus driver seemed to have fun giving 'em the old lecture. In this current fraud country the charges could easily be throwing *deadly missiles*. Yes, all these young American boys are basically terrorist Bin Ladens and their evil government will treat 'em as such until ordinary people start saying and thinking screw this vile government----it isn't always right or hardly ever truthful. A person gets charged by the vile government with throwing *deadly missiles* let's ASSUME it just a handful of pecans thrown by a 12 year old boy. The country wants to be a fraud country it should be treated like a fraud country and these supposedly serious crimes should be PRESUMED to be a joke. :)
Charges of rape? All jokes until I see a real victim and the accused gets a real PUBLIC trial (he is allowed to present evidence) by a jury of his peers and no rape shield filth for the darling of the government.
- insane
- blind with anger
- idiotic
or
- all of the above.
Get some help.
And, you are the type of government lover that would support charging a 12 year old boy who threw a pecan at a bus with throw a "deadly missile." Hopefully, President Obama will take care of people like you in the appropriate fashion---total asset forfeiture and picking cotton under a blazing sun. :)
I loved to visit you and learn if you're still a flag waver at that point.
There is an apocryphal story where a beloved football coach compares rape with kissing your sister. Neither ideal, but if their ain't any livestock handy a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. His sage advice for the rape victim is might as well enjoy it. :)
Hey, I love sick humor even if the government and feminists hadn't transformed rape into a joke (just as "deadly missiles" are a joke when what the government really means is a boy throwing a pecan at a bus) and political football.
Yes, I consider it a sick joke and fraud to assert that prostitution is a violent crime or that rape is never about sex. Makes just as much sense to say the stripping is a violent crime against females by their male oppressors. :)
You're really pissed about something right now. Like how, I suggest you get some counseling to find out what is wrong with you.
hey, two cliches in one paragraph. Not bad, arbeeguy
Hi Dudester,
You don't seem like a libertarian, imo. But, then again most of the libertarians that I know are more like Republicans/globalists warmongers or anti-crime nut cases.
The posts are supposed to be provocative with a pinch of bad humor, however, I'm not just yanking chains or stirring the pot. :)
"Debunking the Feminist Myth
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
'Rape isn’t about sex!' That’s what feminists proclaim. And they’ve declared it so continuously and persuasively over the last few decades, most of our society have come to believe it. The fact is, it’s not true—it’s a myth. . . . " http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writ…
And no, I am not the "government lover" you described.
And yes, you either need help, or you are putting forward a persona on these discussion boards of one who needs help.
It is a put on. He is another of the "vegas" types. Hey, I like that! Those that espouse things so utterly ridiculous as to defy logic are "vegasians".
As I clearly stated it was *apocryphal* and it wasn't the one about achieving a tie. It had livestock for gosh sakes. :)
You certainly seem like a "government lover," but nice hear that at least you don't believe in charging a 12 year boy with too many pecans with throwing "deadly missiles." That's progress, unless perhaps you favor more draconian government response. Torture? Sorry, as a President Bush lover I should have asked Enhanced Interrogation? Life behind bars without the possibility of parole? Surely you must believe the boy is part of a terror network and not mere guilty of using pecans as "deadly missiles"?
This "help" that you think I may need----is that like the "education" the government gives johns. The john "voluntarily" admits his desire for sex was actually just about violence against women. It is like when a person is hungry and they think they want to eat. The government knows better; the hunger is because you need to read your Bible or take a dump. :)
Clubber, do you still believe in the conspiracy with President Obama's birth certificate or have you grown up?
Count me as one who believes in the conspiracy and that President Obama is wonderful beyond my expectations.
When spoken aloud it sounds vaguely sexual.
Besides the fraud that rape isn't about sex, there is my experience that makes me think the "crime" of rape is truly a big fat joke.
Long time back, I was a "witness" in a rape case. One of the accused was this allegedly illegal immigrant. I pulled the case file or maybe it was a sheet of priors. Can't remember. I wanted to learn more about this alleged rapist. WOW!!! What a shock. If the government records were even 5% correct this accused rapist was the Rambo of criminals. It was like a 20 year history of violent crime---assault with deadly weapon, murder 1st degree, rape after rape after rape. I wonder what he did for a living because it seemed like he spent all his time either raping women or engaging in some seemingly non-profit violent activity. Maybe he was on welfare? His daddy was rich? Just overly curious as to who this man was. Never got the opportunity to meet him in person, but I'd gladly treat him to dinner.
What was amusing is that despite the endless felony arrests this gentleman didn't seem to do any prison time at all. Truly amazing. I wonder how could an allegedly illegal immigrant have such a long record and basically remain free to commit more violent crime?
My conspiracy theory is that he worked for the government as an informant. His information was worth letting him do whatever he desired. Or maybe the courts are that bad---- no not possible. :) I never did learn if finally he ran out of luck with his latest rape and it made ZERO difference to me whether he got convicted or not. Going wild for 2 decades----would another 2 decades be that horrible assuming you weren't one of his victims directly or indirectly.
Oh, the alleged victim (fwliw, I believed her) seemed like a very sweet girl. I think he got lucky and she'd just turned 18 about a week earlier. Heck, with his luck or connections it probably wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference if she was a minor.
You are a supporter of the government's so called War on Terror. I think it is fair to say as such you believe those throwing "deadly missiles" should be severely dealt with. Correct? :) LOL!
Yeah, it is a little inconvenient for your mindset that the government was attacking a 12 year old boy for throwing pecans i.e. the so called "deadly missiles" were pecans. Too funny and too sad. Flag wavers will never wake up it seems.
I'm impressed that you *aren't* ranting and raving about how a 12 year old boy throwing pecans is a terrorist and the pecans are "deadly missiles." I think most War on Terror dupes would be frothing about the mouth about the 12 year old pecan boy being a threat to national security and screaming about the need for enhanced interrogation. LOL! :)
*click*
Assuming you are trying to have a real discussion about, "Clubber, do you still believe in the conspiracy with President Obama's birth certificate or have you grown up?", I rarely, if ever, subscribe to "conspiracy theory's". That said, I do think there are legitimate questions that were not answered.
The only conspiracy involving obama that concerns me is his and his pal's that are conspiring to ruin the greatest country in the world. And before you ask, YES, I do believe the evidence points to his and his "group of people" joining together to plot for an evil purpose.
President Obama's birth certificate case sure as hell seems like a "conspiracy" if you aren't buying the official line that there is no issue at where he was born.
By "conspiracy" I mean not only does most of the mainstream media poo poo the idea that President Obama may not have been born in the U.S., but the courts have also taken a blind eye to the situation. Let's not forget the House and the Senate have pretty much, including Republicans, rubber stamped the legitimacy of President Obama. Even though I could be considered a "birther" I believe in any true sense of the terms President Obama is a natural born citizen---even if he was born in the USSR. :)
So President Obama and his pals are conspiring to ruin the U.S.? Sounds insane to me, but I could be wrong. I think most people would use your words: "Those that espouse things so utterly ridiculous as to defy logic" to that belief and your "birther" belief.
President Obama's "group of people" are just people who support the President? Or, do you mean blacks? Muslims? Jews? Christians? Leftists? Banks? Not really sure who his "group of people" is unless you just meant people that voted for him or those who support his policies. For a person who states that he "rarely, if ever, subscribe to 'conspiracy theory's,'" those are a couple of whoppers.
BTW, this "birther" conspiracy seems like a joke, imho, because even if President Obama was born outside of the U.S. it doesn't mean he wasn't a natural born citizen. It is just a question of interpretation of what those terms actually mean.
The sad and funny thing is your statements, supra, are more reasonable and more intelligent and more honorable, than those who push the agenda that rape isn't about sex. LOL! :)
President Obama and "his 'group of people' joining together to plot for an evil purpose." Holy cow, those are very aggressive words after taking a few more looks. Maybe you would like to do a little revision to correct or clarify?
It is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the good people who love America: yes, President Obama is trying to ruin this country. From President Obama's perspective, and in his own words, "I want to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE this country." (Quoted from his presidential debate with Sen McCain last year.)
I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt, and assume he thinks his new America that is fundamentally changed from the system of government we've had since the ratification of the constitution will actually be grand. But to those of us who love America now, we see that such fundamental, structural change to the form of government will be ruinous.
President Obama openly stating that he wants to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE this country doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy---sounds like a campaign promise. Sure a conspiracy could technically be done without secrecy, but that truly ain't how the word is used. It is like if I run for office on the platform of lower taxes with the assistance of like minded individuals and once elected I make good on my platform and lower taxes. It could be claimed that platform of lower taxes was a successful *conspiracy*. That is an abuse of the language---there wasn't any conspiracy, but rather an agenda that was successful. Furthermore, Clubber's words such as "to plot for an evil purpose" emphasizes this isn't a leader merely keeping his word, but of secrecy AND evil.
In a similar vein, if President Obama actually *lied* about illegal immigrants and his health care bill----seems imperative that he be confronted--rudely so there is no mistake about the seriousness of the matter---and that definitely no apology be offered. If President Obama actually did *lie*, then he is the one who needs to be apologizing profusely and impeachment would a good idea.
I sincerely hope that any crime victim, rape or theft or whatever, doesn't need my help. The answer, I'm fairly certain will be NO WAY, NO HOW, FORGET IT. Sad, but when in Rome a person pretty much needs to be doing as the Romans.
It is like cooperating with the police----I found it depressing that lawyers seemed to be of the uniform opinion to take the 5th and not cooperate with the police even if you're innocent. Don't help the police is the very clear message and they are the experts. BTW, although I will follow that advice it isn't in my humble opinion always the best course of action for an innocent suspect. Having said that I'm 1) going to listen to the lawyers and 2) play the odds.
In a free country, I'd be more than happy to blab non-stop to the police or to the judge or to the imbecile/evil doer who claims rape isn't about sex and further wishes to force such sickness unto me. By a free country that includes a public trial, by a jury of my peers, with full and unfettered right to present my defense and my evidence----these are just bare minimums. Let's add full accountablity from both the judge and prosecutor. No jury? Oh gee, it is just a game to generate lawyers' fees or keep the prison system well stocked.
***BTW, I'd would be very interested in any links to lawyers who advise cooperating with the police.*** I did a google search some time back and the results yielded a big zero. Police officers should be the good guys and you should be eager to cooperate with them---but, the game has become too corrupt to treat 'em as the good guys. Think you're going to get a jury trial? Think you're going to get a speedy trial? Think your going to get the truth? OK, cooperate and it may work at for the best.
That is refreshing.
jablake,
BTW, most people voted for him, ergo, he is the president. But now, most oppose him since his campaign was just that and not what he really had planned with his pals. That is why the people are turning away from him and his pals! And YES, it is a conspiracy since they are plotting to change America and not Constitutionally.
A neighbor had what I'd call a "domestic" problem with a young lady. He's pissed as all hell that I didn't call the police against her. I tell him that my eyesight ain't too good (true) and I have trouble walking (true) and he is this lil lunatic raging bull. Then he got really pissed when I explained it was "domestic." He is like what is domestic? I said your fucking the young lady and that makes it "domestic." Oops, now he is really flipping yelling that there is no such thing as "domestic"! He is going to tell the police and I'm totally crazy and sick and stupid, blah, blah, blah. What a nut job---he could almost be a relative he was acting so stupid.
Anyway, I'm thinking the police given how nasty and vile the country has become will surely agree with him. And, they'll have their ears pinned to be busting the young lady to send her to a government prison. :(
A very positive shock. The neighbor came and apologized. That was a wholly unexpected. Turned out both the male and female officers had values that were similar to mind as far as it being "domestic" and not a real crime. So 2 pleasant surprises. The neighbor can't comprehend that is should make any difference that he is fucking the young lady----nope, just send her thru the meat grinder of the justice system. I don't understand his values and really, I'd rather just avoid those type values. Oh, he threatened not to call the police when I needed 'em! I laughed and said that is a reward. He didn't comprehend. I said look, if there is a domestic problem and the police actually wanted to help i.e. cool everyone down and talk some sense into our heads wonderful, but that is a gamble I'd rather not take. Best they stay far away rather than create evermore misery via the justice system.
And, I will eagerly await the next election. :) I assume by then he will "regain" his popularity in a landslide.
Sounds like you are accusing President Obama and his pals of high crimes. He is an angel in my book and probably 99% of my stripper buddies and 70% of my neighbors would concur vociferously. :)
Clubber, imo, you need to get working on that gray area ASAP!!! The freaking entire country could have voted for him, but if he is not a natural born citizen, then NO in way shape or form should he be considered the President. Remember conservatives are supposed to believe not only in the rule of law, the more importantly the Constitution.
Or maybe your a conservative like Scalia---the Constitution only applies if doing so doesn't do too much harm. IOWs. the Constitution is a joke.
So your position is that President Obama doesn't desire the destruction of America?
As for President Obama, I believe he was sincere when he said he wants to fundamentally change America. I also believe he was sincere in his comments that he considers the constitution "negative" and an "obstacle" to be overcome. He does not like this country as it has been, and wants to re-make it into a socialist nation. I do not want that to happen.
So your position and probably that of many who oppose President Obama is that at the very least he is ignorant. Well, that is possible. Even a highly educated and intelligent person can be ignorant.
The nation already seems a good deal socialistic and the thing is once the foundation of the money was switched from a "hard to fiat debt" socialism seemed both inevetable and necessary. If new dollars are going to be created essentially out of thin air, then there should be a means to share all the new dollars. BTW, it would seem offhand that limiting a nation's productive capacity to its gold or silver stockpiles is not only old fashioned, but deranged.
The currency switch changed the game and thus news rules and new moralities need be adopted or taken by force. Sure, creating lots of new money out of thin air allows for massive productivity, but those who don't have access or means to acquire these rapidily increasing number of dollars risk losing their real assets to the money creation game. They should just accept their fate? No, I think they should demand a reasonable share of the new money---at least enough so that the new money doesn't take their real assets.
Or believes in good old fashioned moral values such as freedom of association and family and guns and disfiguring the mark of the beast and two wrongs may make right and the like in continuum.
Or believes in diversity, peace, and just deserts.
Or is religious and follows the will of God-----think save all the millions of babies that would be murdered under color of law; think protect the innocent villagers who wonder why the evil Satan destroys their homes, their families, their communities when as any child or even imbecile knows only the criminals themselves should see execution or other punishment after a fair and open trial.
Sorry, but America is unclean in the extreme---but, President Obama being a great man may be able to clean up the filth.
Ahhhh, yet another useless "birther"...what a surprise that our own resident Right-wing idiot is a member of that sad, sad group of whiners...ugh...
"The only conspiracy involving obama that concerns me is his and his pal's that are conspiring to ruin the greatest country in the world."
Right, by giving more people access to health care (especially children), by having those that earn way, way more than most pay more of their fair share in taxes, by gradually withdrawing troops from a War in Iraq that should have *never* been started in the first place, by ending the use of torture as official U.S. policy, and by stopping wasteful "defense" spending (like "missile shields" that will never work & high-tech fighters that the military doesn't even want). Sounds really, really "dangerous"...ugh...
"From President Obama's perspective, and in his own words, 'I want to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE this country.'"
Meaning, very simply, that he wanted to change the ruinous direction that the country was suffering from under your good buddy GWB, period.
"I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt, and assume he thinks his new America that is fundamentally changed from the system of government we've had since the ratification of the constitution will actually be grand."
Obama is NOT out to fundamentally change the U.S.'s system of govt., period.
"But now, most oppose him"
...in your own, wild dreams that is clubber...lol...
"And YES, it is a conspiracy since they are plotting to change America and not Constitutionally."
LOL...what a moron...keep that fear-mongering right on coming wing-nut...it's not working on anyone...
"I also believe he was sincere in his comments that he considers the constitution 'negative' and an 'obstacle' to be overcome."
Of course, Obama NEVER said anything like that, period.
"He does not like this country as it has been, and wants to re-make it into a socialist nation."
This is just more completely ridiculous Right-wing nonsense.
BTW, you wing-nuts would do well to just ignore jablake...he's been off his rocker for quite a while now. Just don't respond to him!
Sound advice, but do you need to insult 'em when giving it? :) Anyway, I think how was correct concerning President Obama's comments that "the constitution is 'negative' and an 'obstacle' to be overcome."
Hopefully, how has the references for you although it is probably pointless. Worth a try at least, imo.
Oh well, my google search unfortunately gives President Obama a clean bill of health as to his viewing the Constitution as negative (he did mention something about negative liberties---that just means the individual is supposed to be protected *from* the government).
Hopefully, how will ride to the rescue with some hard hit proof that President Obama sees the Constitution as negative and as an obstacle. Seems more like the Constitution is putty and meaningless.
"Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."
I read this as him seeing the Constitution as an obstacle, and as an obstacle, then negative to his agenda, without doubt, since he wishes to change it! If it isn't static, then why bother? Make up the rules as you go along. Sad that some "think" this way.
Peace.
Interesting because I read it as the Constitution being NO obstacle because essentially you can make up the rules as you go along.
It is like with the birth certificate issue---why should President Obama address the merits? The courts pretty much vindicated without saying anything substantive his tactic of avoiding getting to the truth; it's a game. The rules of the game pretty much dictate dishonesty and theft. Under that set of rules why would anyone give a crap what the law or the Constitution supposedly say?
I think the Supreme Court has heard only two or some very insignificant number of Second Amendment cases in the last 75 years and essentially that Amendment offers people zero rights. It is a joke like the rest of the Constitution. So why would people respect the courts or the legislature or the executive. I guess they support wholesale fraud or are too stupid to see the non-stop fraud.
"Interesting because I read it as the Constitution being NO obstacle because essentially you can make up the rules as you go along."
I would expect no more of you.
I would expect and lot more of you and am repeatedly disappointed.
For example, you blither on about this being the greatest country in the world or something like that and then you basically say the U.S. courts allow the MURDER of millions of babies every year. Sounds like a damn nasty country if you truly believed that it was MURDER.
I guess all those MURDERED babies aren't too important after all. Just another joke for hypocritical so called conservatives, but unfortornately with real victims; MILLIONS OF MURDERED BABIES YEARLY. And, then you have the nerve to yap about accountably when a person allegedly violated the law some 3 decades earlier? Sad. :(
You need to face a sentence ranging from 42 days if the judge likes you to 50 years if he doesn't. And, then I'd be eager to hear your opinion on so called "accountablity."
This isn't a very "controversial" view at all in Constitutional law. The idea that the U.S. Constitution is a static document that is set in stone is viewed by many as ridiculous. Times change, society changes (hopefully for the better in the long-run), and the meanings of certain words may evolve over time. Those that seek to gain insight into "what would the Founders think" of this or that particular issue are playing a pointless game. Many of the Founders would look at our world today and likely view many things as being magical, since they would have no reference point for the type of technology that we use today. Likewise, those that will come after us (hundreds of years from now?) will likely look back at our current ways of doing things as childlike.
"I read this as him seeing the Constitution as an obstacle, and as an obstacle, then negative to his agenda, without doubt, since he wishes to change it!"
There's NO evidence for this kind of statement in Obama's words from above, period. For instance, name one portion of the U.S. Constitution that Obama would like to "change" or amend.
"Make up the rules as you go along."
LOL...this is basically an infamous saying from one of the worst justices on the current U.S. Supreme Court...Clarence Thomas. If there is *anyone* on the current Court that views literally everything through a partisan (Right-wing of course) lens...it is him. He doesn't ask many questions during oral arguments because he simply doesn't need to...he's already made up his mind before the *entire case* at hand has been fully heard! He's an abomination IMHO.
"in that if I believed what you claimed, I'd likely agree with the conclusions you reach."
Hey, if you are simply being sceptical of a particular politician, then join the club. ALL politicians lie to a certain extent...usually because they feel that the situation at hand calls for it. I don't idolize ANY politician. Verified facts & figures lead my to my political conclusions, not what this or that politician's empty rhetoric is. Obama merely was the best candidate to latch early onto the view that America needed a "change" for the better in the 2008 election.
"However, I've heard the president discussing the constitution, and my claims are accurate"
...and yet you offer ZERO evidence to back your wild claims up, period.
"And I am also convinced that the 'fundamental change' the president seeks is directed at the foundation of this country, not merely administrative details."
This is just you buying into the Right-wing fear-mongering that's been unfortunately ongoing for many, many years now. That's YOUR problem, not mine!
"I would prefer that your take on his statements were correct; I just cannot reconcile his statements and actions with your conclusions"
...because you are simply blinded by your own Right-wing ideology, period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3p…
Data points:
-- Obama studied Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," and has based his entire career thereon.
-- Obama sought out and maintained a 20-year relationship with a pastor of "black liberation theology" that contends in part that America must be re-formed at its foundation.
-- Obama started his political career in the home of his close friend and like-minded ally, Bill Ayers. That man has been more outspoken in his hatred of the United States, but they both are of one accord.
Conclusions:
As stated before. President Obama's statement that he wants "to fundamentally change this nation" is literally true.
Preaching to the choir here, and you can not change the mind of the brain dead! Same as liberals will not admit they are, neither will socialists or fascists, or commies, or...
True enough. I quoted obama's own words right out of HIS book, read that again oBAMA"S OWN WORDS, and yet some say I am wrong. Some that support him are ignorant, but it seems there are more and more that are just plain STUPID!
I see you read hear, so is it seems you are one of what you describe as "idiots".
Tell you what. MY country is more important to me then your thinking I am an idiot! I will give the aforementioned jablake and the other guy this, they may be wrong, but they do CARE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3p…"
Ahhh yes, yet another *heavily edited* propaganda piece from the ultra-Right-wing "NakedEmperorNews" people...ugh...
Governments exist, in part, to redistribute wealth. This concept literally goes all the way way to the Roman Republic.
Redistributive change is simply a legal theory of economic justice *within the context of U.S. law* that promotes the recognition of poverty as a classification, like race, ethnicity, gender, and religion, that should likewise draw extra scrutiny from the courts in matters pertaining to civil rights. Obama simply has declared that redistributive change needs to come through legislation, not the courts, and he lamented that the civil rights movement failed to pursue political means to bring such a change about.
http://www.slate.com/id/2203237
"The greatest irony is that Obama sounds conservative themes in the interview. He says the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts, and not enough on legislation, community organizing and political will. This is exactly what conservatives have said about the movements of the 1960s -- that they relied too much on judges, rather than the legislative system."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/elect…
"YES, HE JUST SAID IT'S A TRAGEDY THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T RADICALLY REINTERPRETED TO FORCE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS."
Obama didn't say that, in fact. Later, during the video version of the interview, responding to a question from a female caller to the show about income redistribution via legislatures or the courts, Obama replied: 'I am not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way.' Again, the video offers its creator's interpretation:
HE DOESN'T THINK THE COURT CAN DO IT BUT DOES THINK IT CAN BE DONE LEGISLATIVELY. IT ISN'T TOO LATE."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2…
The idea (most recently pushed by the likes of Rush) that Obama is out to legislatively force "reparations" on whites for the results on slavery in just blind racism, and this heavily edited video above is one big hoodwink...and you Right-wingers fell for it hook, line, and sinker, period.
"Obama studied Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals,' and has based his entire career thereon."
Alinsky was a simply a great community organizer who specifically rejected any connection with communists or any other political group, period. Red Herring...
"Obama sought out and maintained a 20-year relationship with a pastor of 'black liberation theology' that contends in part that America must be re-formed at its foundation."
This is sheer Right-wing nonsense. The Rev. Wright issues were completely & intentionally overblown by those on the Right for perceived political gain, and it didn't work!
"Obama started his political career in the home of his close friend and like-minded ally, Bill Ayers."
LMAO! It's *a whole year later* and you wing-nuts are STILL talking about Ayers, who Obama & his administration has had NOTHING to do with?! Please...give it up...
"President Obama's statement that he wants 'to fundamentally change this nation' is literally true"
...in your own warped mind that is...lol...what a complete & utter joke!
"MG challenged me that I gave 'ZERO evidence' regarding the president's view of the constitution"
...and you STILL haven't given any valid evidence of your radical, Right-wing beliefs, period.
"I quoted obama's own words right out of HIS book, read that again oBAMA"S OWN WORDS, and yet some say I am wrong"
...because you're intentionally taking them out of context, moron. Run away now...
All leftists are enemies of liberty.
Such a sweeping generalization. I'm not a fan of the New Deal, BUT there isn't much in the way of liberty when your belly is empty and you can't even afford the taxes for a plot of land. Once the government starts creating money---basically out of thin air---then that money to promote the general welfare needs to be distributed far and wide. It could go to the rich or to the poor, but it needs to circulate.
Also, once the government starts granting licenses, patents, etc. then that interference with the market again calls for redistribution. Why should the government protect Bill Gates's software? To encourage innovation and productivity? HMMMM . . . there was that famous case of PC clones. A judge basically ripped the protections from IBM-----getting rid of the government protection for "intellectual property" actually spurred innovation and wealth on a massive scale (I still remember IBM want $400 for a floppy drive and the competitor wanted $12 for a *better* drive). Government wasn't needed except to distort the market in favor of the elite----do that and yes a huge welfare state is needed to help fix the inequity government created.
Some leftists see all this evil of governments' market distortion and recognize if government is going to be a menace, then at least have government be a menace in a good direction too. Endless war? Fine let the boys play, but now that small government has been defenestrated it is time for government to do something positive like jailing pelfers and putting supposed conservative to work picking cotton in the blazing sun. :)
And your continued railing against "endless war" is silly. One of the very few things the federal government has principal and nearly sole responsibility for is "providing for the common defense." Al qaeda and associated militia (terrorists in general) are a real threat to freedom-loving people worldwide. Countering their menace is a worthy effort.
Countering their menace is hardly a blank check. In fact, the "terrorists" could be anyone. As I said if that idiotic war on "terror" is justified, then the federal government can start thowing away real trillions on all manner of welfare programs for the poor.
Dang, I wish this nit wit government declared war on "terror" when McVeigh blew up what was it 300 people? Yep, the nit wit government could be blowing up "right wing militia" all over this stinking country. Blow up women and children and other innocents? Why not it is all about "terrorism." Besides this vile government could of started its idiocy after the first attack on the world trade center---with any luck this endless war on "terror" will bankrupt the country if it is continues.
ANY small band of people could cause massive destruction-----as did little old country boy McVeigh----he was a war hero for the U.S. government wasn't he? Anyway, the fact that a tiny group can inflict substantial harm doesn't make it a "war." It should be a police action against those actually responsible and not this massive overkill which only helps the "terrorists." The typical Muslim peon has pretty much zero interest in this country until the U.S. government engaged in wholesale terrorism---not the penny ante BS of McVeigh or Bin Laden-----NO, I'm talking about the terrorism only a government has the resources to inflict.
Took you way to long to figure that out. :) Sometimes I still peruse their ramblings, but only for a decent chuckle.
If this sounds like a radical proposal that could never work, it may surprise you to learn that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes praised the theoretical soundness of Gesell's ideas. What's more, the system has actually been tried out with great success.
Although demurrage was applied as long ago as Ancient Egypt in the form of a storage cost for commodity-backed currency,[4] the best-known example was instituted in the town of Worgl, Austria, in 1932 by its famous mayor Uttenguggenberger. To remain valid, each piece of this locally-issued currency required a monthly stamp costing 1% of its face value. Instead of generating interest and growing, accumulation of wealth became a burden—much like possessions are a burden to the nomadic hunter-gatherer. People therefore spent their income quickly, generating intense economic activity in the town. The unemployment rate plummeted even as the rest of the country slipped into a deepening depression; public works were completed, and prosperity continued until the Worgl currency was outlawed in 1933 at the behest of a threatened central bank." http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter7…
Money of the Poor - Money of the Jubilee
by
Prof. Giacinto Auriti
PREMISE:
Nowadays, all the peoples of the world are poor because they are in debt of all their money and also more. As a consequence of the old and usual habit of always giving an equivalent in order to get money, the central banks induced all the peoples to accept their money, at the issue's act, with the equivalent of a debt (which shouldn't be due), that is to say on loan. Therefore the nominal money caused the biggest fraud of all time, unnoticed because it is too evident."
http://www.moneymaker.com/italy/moneyoft…
Supposed conservative Bork had an interesting perspective on liberty. He believed that the freedom to have your democratically elected representatives impose collective will was equal to the freedom of being left alone.
For example, the First Amendment is a net zero as far as freedom is concerned according to judge Bork. Most people in his opinion would be happier and feel increased liberty with their democratically elected representive choosing which speech is criminal and which is acceptable. Supposed conservatives who might have a heart attack if they thought others enjoyed pictures of nude 11 year old girls and boys may very well be thrilled with government drawing a line and choosing for the collective what is good and what is bad. This freedom of government censorship may be abundantly more of a liberty interest in Bork's world as well as that of supposed conservatives.
The liberal would whimper of course the government should decide---they're your neighbors. Apparently these liberals are a little to dense to remember President Bush got elected. Shoot, I wouldn't care if President Bush and I were life long sexual partners----I still wouldn't want him deciding anything for me. Unfortunately, since supposed conservatives love more government the liberals with their socialistic freedom agenda win in a landslide, imo.
The difference between a supposed conservative like Bork and a liberal? The liberal wants a big government that actually tries to promote the general welfare. The supposed conservative is for more government to pass more laws to enrich a corrupt justice system and to promote endless war. Embarrassed that I ever voted Republican.
...once again, in your own hugely-biased & warped mind that is...ugh...
"What this thread seems to be missing is precise to the point comments."
I'm sorry to hear that you have trouble reading more than a few lines of text at a time txtittyfan, but that's YOUR problem, not mine. Short, catchy slogans are nothing more than empty-headed rhetoric, period.
"McVeigh was an insect to be swatted."
No, he was part of long line of home-grown, extreme Right-wing terrorists in the USA.
"Islamofascists" is a completely made up word BTW. See above comments on "short, catchy slogans".
"Will this administration follow-through?"
Of course it will...in the areas that your buddy GWB neglected over much of his term...in Afghanistan & Pakistan...where our *real* enemies are, period.
Just cause it be a neologism don't mean it is empty-headed.
"No, he was part of long line of home-grown, extreme Right-wing terrorists in the USA."
The Wall Street Journal had him as part of a whole dangerous network that could be stretch to exceed that of foreign "terrorists."
Ideally, President Obama would follow in the footsteps of President Reagan and declare victory as the U.S. military runs as fast as they can away from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. And, pay reparations to help circulate the blessing and curse of the fiat U.S. dollar. This would be a substantive victory. President Bush almost grasped the concept when he declared mission accomplished, but then stayed to continue the mission??? Talk about No Child Left Behind . . .