americans

[mrs.wes straker]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

American society is built on the broken backs of illegal immigrants. The SF mayor's words ensure that everyone can have their clothes dry cleaned, food delivered, etc. I don't support his choices on that matter, but you have to realize that SF is a haven for many people who would be threatened, hurt, or killed for their beliefs and/or orientation. Sorry if I seem biased, it's a bay area thing

Yeah and I'm from NJ. ;-) We don't have a reputation for being the most sensitive people in the work, know what I mean?

What you said about the whole dry cleaning food delivery thing was a bit stereotypical, and it almost sounded racist. But, whatever. America can't continue sustaining all these people. It's not that all of our ancestors weren't immigrants at some time, illegal or not, that's just the reality of it.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

How many people heard San Francisco mayor decry his city to be a "Sanctuary" city? He said "No city officicial in any capacity shall take part in federal raids or turn in any illegal immigrant.." So a local govt official has said he would not uphold the laws of the country, and in fact refuses too. Not that sf has a large illegal population, but it's the princible of the matter. We have local govt people advocating breaking the law....

I don't see a problem with that. The feds have made up their minds that such-and-such shall be the case. California or (San Fransisco) doesn't want it that way. So they say, fine, but do your own dirty work. If we were in charge it wouldn't be that way, so you don't get to use our money, our people, or our resources to make it so. It's a federal law. Uphold it with federal resources.

As for whether you are sympathetic on this specific issue (immigration), that's a separate question... but I think it's nice to see a more local government refuse to be turned into the agent of a less local government. The over-centralization of government is why I think people are giving up on the democratic process. I know it's one thing that makes it look like a farce to me. Decisions about San Fransisco should be made by people in San Fransisco... decisions about California by Californians, and so on up. Not by the feds.

Drake

[mrs.wes straker]

It sounds like an interesting idea, but realistically a municipality cannot contend with the federal goverment. Whoever is implementing the policies to ignore, resist or not comply with federal law will simply end up jobless.

[Drake Dun]

Local officials are not federal employees, and cannot be fired by the feds. It's not like Dubbya can simply fire the governor of California if he wants to. They can, of course, bring financial pressure to bear, since they have carefully arranged things so that the States are dependant upon them.

Drake

[mrs.wes straker]

I didn't say they'd get fired. I said they'd lose their jobs. How it happens all depends. The jobs are very political, so there are plenty of angles to be had. Fed. law is above all other. In the case of any contradictions, it is supreme. Politicians on local levels can't just invent their own policies if they're in disagreement w/ fed policies. With something as serious as the aforementioned, I'm sure the lack of cooperation would be addressed. Especially, as you stated, since they depend on the feds for their funding. Funding is never provided without conditions. Holdbacks of resources are a very powerful weapon, and can be used to entice changes and removal of parties who are a thorn to the side of the national agenda. Anyhow, that's one of many ways the loss of a position could happen.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

Fed. law is above all other. In the case of any contradictions, it is supreme.

True.

With something as serious as the aforementioned, I'm sure the lack of cooperation would be addressed... Holdbacks of resources are a very powerful weapon...

Also true. I see what you are saying now.

I want to mention one qualification, though. Since Congress likes to interpret the commerce clause and residual power clause as carte blanche, they often do stuff that they're clearly not allowed to do if you take the Constitution at face value. For example, it is a total mystery to me where they find the power to enact federal regulations against drug use. It seems like it should be possible in these cases for a state to stand up to the feds.

Immigration is clear cut, though. It's definitely in the fed ball court, and now that I think about it, the mayor of S.F. saying he won't comply with fed regulations on illegal immigration does sound more like playing games than taking a stance.

Drake

[mrs.wes straker]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I want to mention one qualification, though. Since Congress likes to interpret the commerce clause and residual power clause as carte blanche, they often do stuff that they're clearly not allowed to do if you take the Constitution at face value. For example, it is a total mystery to me where they find the power to enact federal regulations against drug use. It seems like it should be possible in these cases for a state to stand up to the feds.

Drake

Interestin; I shall think about this.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

It's obvious you have your ideas about what should be done to lift others up, but the truth is everyone must lift themselves up.

So by your standards, you feel children born in impoverished areas do not deserve any special treatment? That inner city schools, compared to schools in say Orange County do not need extra funding because its the students responsibility to fix the problems there?

You feel all children have an equal shot at a good life in America? YOu serious are arguing that say a child that grows up in Harlem in a broken home has just as much opportunity to make it to an Ivy League school as one that grows up in Greenwich?

Thats a very narrow-minded take on things. Trying to say that a child that grows up in a gang-ridden drug filled neighborhood has as many choices in his life as one that was born with a seven figure trust fund just does not make sense.

Nor can you put everyone at the same level at birth. Cuba's done it, and it's done nothing but cripple the nation. Parents work to support their children. What I give my children is my gift to them, and if someone else doesn't think far ahead enough to do for their own, they'll have to answer for that.

Yes, you can. I have listed a dozen nations that do - not just Cuba. Sweden, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Australia, Denmark, and many others offer programmes to equal the playing field. Also note that these nations all lead America in every category - once again check the beginning of this thread. America falls in line at #17 in the list of nations in the world based on overall preformance. Education, health programmes, access to medical care, things like this America is years behind the rest of the first world nations. And it is directly attributed to persons like yourself who for some reason feel that they are better than the common man who lives next door, and per your statement above blame the children for their parents short comings

Also, once again the topic of Cuba has arisen. Have you been there? It's the #1 leading holiday spot in South America for britain, Ireland, and a large chunk of Europe (oh, and Canada). Cuba is to Europe what Florida is to Americans. It's funny to hear Americans blast it, as they have never been there, and most only know the propaganda stories that come out of right wing administrations, like the bush administration. It's a lovely country, with great resorts that far surpass those even found in Mexico. I say before you claim that its a 'tragedy' you should look into investigating it personally.

You are a sympathizer which is fine, but your are not thinking objectively. I feel bad for the less fortunate, but I have my own affairs to attend to.

Thats the American way. Screw your neighbors, to hell with your community - I'm out to 'get mine' and I don't care who I have to step on to get there.

Do you know people from the ghettos like I've know them? Poverty is a mentality, and a culture.

I lived in Richmond, Virginia for 10 years. I owned a house in an all-black neighborhood. I had a man killed 10 feet from my doorstep in a drive-by shooting, and another killed half a block down from my house in the alleyway. So yes, I am familiar with 'the ghetto'. Just because you come from or dwell in humble abodes does not mean you cannot have a sense of community with those around you.

People do make concious choices to live that way, also. Some make the choices by following examples. Others have verbalized their choice, which you missed or failed to acknowledge from my last post. It is a mentality where people end up doing their own selves in by bad reasoning.

So your saying all the children being raised in crime ridden areas with crack dealers on the corners and gang killings happening on the streets do so because of choice? Well, you should just drive to those neighborhoods and tell everyone that lives there that they don't have to be there anymore! All they have to do is choose not to be poor anymore!

That argument is remnant of the Nancy Regan campaign to put an end to drug addiction by 'just say no', because we know that all addictions are a choice. Or Marie Antoinette - there is no bread to feed the people, well let them eat cake!

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Do you want to know why most x mil and police think it's bad to help people like that. You learn self respect and that "YOU" are the only one that can help yourself. Not some overworked govt worker who doesn't know you. Govt. Programs have a long history of failure to help people.. IE wellfare and such. We survived for thousands of years without it? It's just another way for the left to gain power and control every single aspect of a persons life.

Really?

So why is it that there are so many homeless veterans out there who live at the VA or on the streets, eat in soup kitchens, and have created a coalition to help enact legislation to end homelessness ?

Current stats show there are 400,000 homeless vets right now, all who live on the charity of others.

http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm

Guess they didn't learn that lesson on 'self-respect' you speak of. Also, why does allowing your government, which you pay taxes to, and in the case of veterans give life and limb for, why does letting them help you meet the basic needs of food and shelter take away your self respect? It's a right-wing propaganda technique.

As I have said many, many times before - the governments first duty is to that of its people. If the people are starving and in the streets and have only the churches and charity agencies to depend on, then something is wrong. The government bears responsibility for this, and it needs to be addressed. Saying that those people made a conscious choice to be homeless and claim they lack self respect is tantamount to attacking a **** victim by claiming they dressed to pervocatively.

Govt wellfare has never worked in the history of man! And if someone doesn't know the value of budgeting and buying groceries instead of eating out all the time how's that my fault or responsibility?

Must I say this again? Australia, a country you claim to love and know so much about has one of the best welfare systems in the world. It's the same on present in britian, Ireland, and most of Europe. When you are out of work here or there, the government pays you in cash every week. It never runs out. Also, you get rent allowance. The government pays your rent, for as long as it takes to get you 'back on your feet'. We also have free medical for anyone who cannot afford it. Anyone who makes below €35,000 gets free medical. Does this mean all those who live in Europe and Australia are lacking self respect?

If you give something away for free why should people want to work and contribute to the local culture and society? That's a proven fact. That's why most on wellfare stay on it indefinately.

Another right-wing propaganda falsehood. Studies show in areas previously listed who have such welfare systems in place that the abuse level is at or below 4%. People here know if they abuse it, they will lose it.

So what if I'm a flag waver. At least I believe and have pride in something other than an overblown self righteous ego like yours stern.

I fail to see how 'pride' factors into this. More like hubris. I promote equality for everyone. I think governments should take care of their people, not spend 30 billion a month on sending bombs to another country when schools in their own nation are falling apart and children at grade 12 can't read. Does this mean I have an ego?

I'm not the one attacking the less fortunate, claiming I am somehow better and should be treated differently that everyone else around me.

You still have never proven any wellfare programs that have transformed entire urban areas or anything. My ideals are tested with thousands of years of societal growth. What ideals? Strong family, good teaching and self responisibilty. I'm sorry if being responisible for ones self offends you stern, but get over it.

Once again, I could list the nations that have such programmes that excel far above the United States, but at this points its redundant - I have listed them no less than 10 times in this thread. Also, most of these nations, as I have said time and time again, exists long before America existed - and still exist today. What nation are you referring to that you live in that has 'thousands of years of growth'? My last check put America at a little over 200.

I'm not offended by responsibility, but am saddened when a person chooses to put the needs of themselves above the needs of their community and trys and claim that anyone who doesn't follow such a path is somehow less than human.

[mrs.wes straker]

CP Sternn, you are an irritating and silly debater. I'm not answering any of your questions until you respond properly to my argument. A proper repsonse to a post is not ignoring the valid points made by the person you are arguing with and pulling more ridiculous questions out of your butt. I find it laughable that you are constantly trying to imply that the inner cities are full of oppressed people who would excel if they could just get a chance. Have you ever heard of scholarships and grants? Answer my posts adequately and then we can talk. Your ideas aren't above everyone else's.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

I'm not answering any of your questions until you respond properly to my argument.

Don't hold your breath for this.

Someone asked earlier in the thread why people are mean to Sternn. This is just one of several dozens of reasons. Turns what would otherwise be an intelligent debate into a three-ring circus of absurdity.

[mrs.wes straker]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Someone asked earlier in the thread why people are mean to Sternn.

Oh, shite, I'm pretty sure that was me. Serves me right for defending him.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

CP Sternn, you are an irritating and silly debater. I'm not answering any of your questions until you respond properly to my argument. A proper repsonse to a post is not ignoring the valid points made by the person you are arguing with and pulling more ridiculous questions out of your butt.

I addressed every line in your last post. If you feel I didn't, then properly ask a question, bullet point if it you want precise questions answered, and I'll be happy to respond on a point-by-point basis.

I find it laughable that you are constantly trying to imply that the inner cities are full of oppressed people who would excel if they could just get a chance. Have you ever heard of scholarships and grants?

Really? So you are arguing that people are not oppressed, and they its a choice to be poor, or a criminal, and that society bears no responsiblity for ones actions, that 100% of all life paths are based on a persons choice - enviornment plays no part what-so-ever?

Thats what you say here, and have said previously. You discount the science of sociology as a whole, never even taking into account that a persons environment always plays a part. Check out the VT thread - I have a more detailed explanation there that goes along with this very topic.

That being said, by your statements, you claim people 'choose' to live a certain way. Well, I then would put it to you like this. As a person of color, you will be able to answer this for me then -

Per statistics from the Dept. Of Justice and U.S. Census, blacks are incarcerated at a rate of 5-1 to whites. Blacks represent 14% of the overall population in America, but over half of the prison population.

Is this because blacks are more prone to commit acts of crime? Are you arguing that peoples actions are a 'mentality', and that society and the environment play no part? If so, you are saying what neo-nazi leaders and other right-wing facists have been claiming for years - that being a criminal is a choice and certain groups are prone to commit such acts due to race, not because of the fact they grow up in a poor neighborhood and have little in the way of options or choices to help them move forward in life.

Claiming people are poor because they 'choose' to be also follows this same logic.

The average yearly household income was 50,622 US dollars for whites, compared with 30,940 for blacks. White people's income was 64 percent more than the blacks. Three-fourths of white households owned their homes in 2005, compared with 46 percent of black households. The poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent in 2005, while the rates were 24.9 percent for blacks.

By your line of reasoning, that being poor is a 'mentality' furthers the idea then that blacks as a people choose to be poor, be criminals, and that there are no outside mitigating factors that have any effect on their lives other than the choices they make. Whites for some reason then choose to be rich, not commit crimes, and are better off as a race simply because they make better choices.

Is that really what you want to argue?

[mrs.wes straker]

Sternn, you don't get it. Asking me questions like, "Do you think black people are more inclined to commit crimes?" isn't going to make me feel guilty and try to further explain my views my point. Piling the thread up with stats doesn't prove a point either. Your stats are one sided. There are other realities to people's situations beside the unfortunate circumstances they happened to be born into. Think about the questions you're asking me, too. Is it the children's fault this and is it the children's fault that. Well, I think we all know that children can't help themsemlves and as a black person and a mother I'm here to tell you that no society that constantly abandons, neglects, or disregards their children will thrive. Let's stop asking silly questions and put some onus on the people who insist on breeding without planning even thought they are reminded over and over about the dangers of having unprotected sex. I'm sure you know what accountability is, and expect it to be exercised in many aspects of life. As a person of color, as you put it, I do. I've already said it in so many ways.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by mrs.wes straker

Sternn, you don't get it. Asking me questions like, "Do you think black people are more inclined to commit crimes?" isn't going to make me feel guilty and try to further explain my views my point. Piling the thread up with stats doesn't prove a point either. Your stats are one sided. There are other realities to people's situations beside the unfortunate circumstances they happened to be born into.

How exactly are those stats one-sided? Those are stats taken from the census, they have no side. Stats merely reflect the reality which is present at the time they are taken.

I do agree that there are other realities that do play some role in a persons unfortunate situation, but your argument that a person choice is the only factor, and ignoring stats, society, and anything other than your views on personal choice seems to be a very narrow and short sighted view on your part.

Think about the questions you're asking me, too. Is it the children's fault this and is it the children's fault that. Well, I think we all know that children can't help themsemlves and as a black person and a mother I'm here to tell you that no society that constantly abandons, neglects, or disregards their children will thrive.

Once again, what I am arguing as well. Children don't have the luxury of choosing their parents. Therefore, the parents lifestyle choices directly effect the child. If you don't level the playing field for the child, how do you expect them to rise above their beginnings? You must agree that a parents bad choices do effect the child in some way, so how can you then say its the childs 100% responsibly to better themselves if you know some children grow up in a home that doesn't properly prepare them for what comes next in life?

Let's stop asking silly questions and put some onus on the people who insist on breeding without planning even thought they are reminded over and over about the dangers of having unprotected sex. I'm sure you know what accountability is, and expect it to be exercised in many aspects of life.

Once again, I reiterate, I never said a person has no responsibility. What I have stated is that there is a balance between the factors in society and the factors which exist internally. You can't lay blame on a person for their bad choices if they had no good choices to make in the beginning. It's like giving someone a gun and telling them they can either shoot themselves in the left foot or right foot. Children born into poverty, into neighborhoods where gangs are considered 'cool', where drug dealers get more respect than community leaders, and where one must fight to find enough money to feed themselves on a daily basis has a direct effect on those who are raised there.

To argue a person that comes out of that sort of environment with stability issues and blame them for their lifestyle without laying some type of blame on the society/government which allowed such areas to fester unabated is ignorant.

Children that grow up in a war zone are effected for life. Children that grow up in areas as I mentioned above are directly effected as well. I am not saying that if they choose a path in life that has some bad choices later that they should be absolved of any responsibility. What I am saying it that with the deck stacked against them, one must take into consideration that those persons never had a proper up bringing, that they missed the life lessons one might have learned if they grew up in a more affluential area.

To fault them on this, and place blame only at their feet is to ignore reality in the world.

If a member of an African tribe was taken to a proper cocktail party and did not know the difference between the shrimp fork and the salad fork, would you consider him to be stupid? Would he be considered in that social circle as less than a man? On the flip side if a child raised on Manhattan island was placed in the outback and forced to fend for himself, you think he would be able to survive? If he couldn't would that mean he was stupid? Or less of a man?

My point is that up bringing and the area in which you are raised plays a significant part in shaping the decisions you make and directly effects how you will respond in society. I do agree a certain amount of responsibility does lie with the individual, however, to claim that those in impoverished areas bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions, to claim they 'choose' to be poor, to engage in illegal acts, is to discount what the reality is in those areas.

[raggedyanne]

Has anyone seen Blood Diamond? I know we're talking about america, not africa. But it's like: fight, be a slave, or get a limb(s) cut off. Every enviroment forces people to make different choices. Cho's psyco-ness had almost nothing to do with where he grew up. It did give him an outlet for his anger, even if that outlet was not a prodyctive one.

[ArtificialOne]

WOHO!!!

A conservative won Frances pres elections.. Maybe now those pesky things like a huge national debt due to a huge wellfare state the socialist created and the "Multicultural" bs will end, not to mention falling wages, unemployment and high crime might end...

Oh wait... I thought stern said socialism was the best thing since sliced bread.. oh, nevermind he actually never said that.. just implied it in every post on every topic under the sun on gnet... silly me...

Viva La France!

[Binkie]

Yeah, I was watching that pretty closely too. Looks like the French people gave Sarkozy a clear mandate in electing him into office.

France won't be like the UK or Australia all of the sudden, but Sarkozy certainly has a better outlook on foreign policy and relations with the US than Chirac or anyone else. Much like Merkel having come in at the booting of Schroder and his party out of office in Germany, this is a dawning of a new age and a possible shaking again of old hands.

[ArtificialOne]

I know, it all sounds good.

Seems like some parts of the world are rethinking socialism.

[Nike]

Lol, hate to remind you, ArtificialOne, but Chirc has never been a socialist - he is a conservative, too!
Chirac and Sarkozy have been rivals, yes, but rivals in the same political party (UMP). Sarkozy is more America friendly than Chirac and he is also more right wing and nationalist.

[Vako]

I would like to remind everyone that Americans are fat debt-slaves who are incapable of finding other people's countries on maps, and only watch too much of the 'Tellie'.

Our heads are so far up our asses that you can see our faces by looking in our mouths. Our cars are too big and our asses are ever widening, and we use too much energy. Our stretch-mark-infested asses can no longer fit in rocket ships, so Frogland and Slopetown have overtaken us in space exploration. WE are all racist ignorami who are illiterate. We'll vote for Jeb Bush and raise the next generation of ******-bashers.

My gun collection and manifesto are both locked in my tar-paper shack, because I'm a big, dumb, ugly American who works for a living. I can't do math and teacher never taught me about Science because Science is from the Devyil.

I watch American Idol and NASCAR will prevail. (not).

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Vako

I would like to remind everyone that Americans are fat debt-slaves who are incapable of finding other people's countries on maps, and only watch too much of the 'Tellie'.

Our heads are so far up our asses that you can see our faces by looking in our mouths. Our cars are too big and our asses are ever widening, and we use too much energy. Our stretch-mark-infested asses can no longer fit in rocket ships, so Frogland and Slopetown have overtaken us in space exploration. WE are all racist ignorami who are illiterate. We'll vote for Jeb Bush and raise the next generation of ******-bashers.

My gun collection and manifesto are both locked in my tar-paper shack, because I'm a big, dumb, ugly American who works for a living. I can't do math and teacher never taught me about Science because Science is from the Devyil.

I watch American Idol and NASCAR will prevail. (not).

Quoted for truth. I blame it on the terrible secret of space.

[Aaroneet]

Some of these are not simply American, but the aspects of the human condition brought out by circumstance.

[ArtificialOne]

I've traveled all around... and to be honest.. human nature is human nature. With the exception of language and certain customs people are pretty much the shame.

If you look at studies from around the world, obesity, drug use, etc. are all rising. Becuase the US is such a media driven society, and exports that media more than anything else, the world gets to see the huge hype and controversy that the media likes to blow out of proportion. This is compounded by blatant Anti US people such as stern here on gnet to further there own political ideals. Life goes on and things change. But people are people no matter where they are.

And, I actually didn't realize Cirac was a conservative, he acted so much like a socialist it was hard to tell. Also the new french pres is the third conservative to take office. It seems like the the 1968 semi socialist revolution might be finally dead.

[mrs.wes straker]

Originally Posted by Vako

I would like to remind everyone that Americans are fat debt-slaves who are incapable of finding other people's countries on maps, and only watch too much of the 'Tellie'.

Our heads are so far up our asses that you can see our faces by looking in our mouths. Our cars are too big and our asses are ever widening, and we use too much energy. Our stretch-mark-infested asses can no longer fit in rocket ships, so Frogland and Slopetown have overtaken us in space exploration. WE are all racist ignorami who are illiterate. We'll vote for Jeb Bush and raise the next generation of ******-bashers.

My gun collection and manifesto are both locked in my tar-paper shack, because I'm a big, dumb, ugly American who works for a living. I can't do math and teacher never taught me about Science because Science is from the Devyil.

I watch American Idol and NASCAR will prevail. (not).

Hey! What was starred out; or censored? Ha, ha, you are great. I love sarcasm. I am an Uncle Tom type American, I despise blacks and the poor, and I've made my money by ratting to the white man as to where his escaped slaves have taken refuge. Nah, I'm just joking of course. Prejudice stinks, including prejudice against Americans. I'm tired of hearing it. I'm tired of people judging us when they really aren't better than us, but since we are in the limelight, we get all the critcism. If the other peoples were as just, fair, and full of love as they claimed to be, there would be no civil wars, abuse of power, or oppression anywhere else in the world but in America, right?

What's that you say? There are oppressors everywhere?

By golly, that must mean that by nature humans are greedy and elitists. Not just American humans, but all. By the same measure people judge, so they will be judged.