|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 51 of 186:
| 
Jan 18 20:27 UTC 2006 |
Somehow I'm not surprised that you would be involved with a group seeking
to put Jewish people in a camp.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 52 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:29 UTC 2006 |
resp:49 - It is relevant. You said you would rather be an ethnic
minority in Europe than in the US. It would have been rather laughable
for you to say what a minority should or should not prefer if you
weren't one yourself.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 53 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:31 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 54 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:31 UTC 2006 |
#51 is a low blow.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 55 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:31 UTC 2006 |
Honestly, I think the main difference when it comes to race between
Europe and the US is how the concept of racism and race relations are
approached. Americans *seem* more up front about their prejudices for
the most part.
|
naftee
|
|
response 56 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:37 UTC 2006 |
you're a black chick, sylvia ?
|
klg
|
|
response 57 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:45 UTC 2006 |
(54: You would expect something intelligent from vh??)
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:47 UTC 2006 |
Re: #52. Why? You seem to be suggesting that, say, not being black blinds me
to the fact that black people on both continents are underprivileged. I find
that extremely offensive and racist and, if that's an example of you being
"more up front about your prejudices," then speaking as a European, I'd much
prefer you to act like one.
As a sidenote, I really can't understand the modern attitude to minorities and
the underprivileged, insofar as it seems to tolerate no prejudice from the
majority towards the minorities (which is good), but almost ENCOURAGES
prejudices from the minorities towards the minority. NOT helpful.
|
twenex
|
|
response 59 of 186:
|
Jan 18 20:47 UTC 2006 |
(57: Well, it's more likely than something intelligent from you.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 60 of 186:
|
Jan 18 21:00 UTC 2006 |
resp:58 - Jesus. What you're hearing is not what I'm saying at all.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said "minority" not "black". I think we
can all agree that black people aren't the only minorities in Europe or
the US. I believe Jews to have the same minority status as blacks do,
or should. What I said, clearly, was that not being an ethnic minority
and making that statement would be laughable.
resp:56 Yes, I am.
|
twenex
|
|
response 61 of 186:
|
Jan 18 21:02 UTC 2006 |
That was an example. Maybe I should have said, "You seem to be saying that
not being a minority blinds me to the fact that minorities are
underprivileged..."
|
twenex
|
|
response 62 of 186:
|
Jan 18 21:03 UTC 2006 |
...which was the original intent.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 63 of 186:
|
Jan 18 21:14 UTC 2006 |
I'll freely acknowledge it was a cheap shot, but the setup was just way
too obvious to ignore.
Churches face zoning headaches all the time here in the US. A typical
case would be a group wanting to build a mega-church in a semi-rural
area near denser suburbs, but the county fighting the effort because it
doesn't meet the development guidelines, or because the roads and sewer
system and other infrastructure in the area is insufficient to handle
the load, or some other reason. Some are quick to cry religious
discrimination when this happens.
It's hardly surprising that something similar could happen in Canada,
and it doesn't constitute terribly compelling evidence that Canadian
society oppresses Jews. As far as Jewish population ratios go Canada
is roughly tied with Russia and France for 3rd place.
|
jep
|
|
response 64 of 186:
|
Jan 18 21:40 UTC 2006 |
re resp:50: You write as if gerrymandering is something new. Seats for
the House of Representatives have been as fixed as possible for longer
than you or I have been around. Changes in the majority are rare but
still possible, and it is possible there will be substantial changes
this year.
|
scholar
|
|
response 65 of 186:
|
Jan 18 23:14 UTC 2006 |
Re. 47: That's NOT your ethnicity.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 66 of 186:
|
Jan 18 23:29 UTC 2006 |
re #64:
> You write as if gerrymandering is something new.
No, actually, I don't. I think it's clear from my response that
the process has been going on for years and years, through many
election cycles.
All I meant to express through #50 is that the realities of our
current districting make it very unlikely that anything less than
a colossal shift in public opinion will much alter the current
makeup of the House.
|
jep
|
|
response 67 of 186:
|
Jan 18 23:36 UTC 2006 |
Oh. Well, I agree with that. I think it's possible such a shift is
occurring, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 186:
|
Jan 18 23:41 UTC 2006 |
re #45
I'm a black woman, tod. I can hardly separate the two. Having said
that, no, I'd have less equality in Europe, save perhaps the U.K.
From a demographic standpoint, I see what you're saying. A black woman in
this country tends to get the least benefits in the job force due to human
trash chauvanist bigots. From a personal perspective though, I see a
discernible difference between race and gender. I'm not so sure that you
could find the same sort of inequality in all of Europe compared to the USA,
though. I think in Europe, there are other distinctions which cause bigger
problems like classism, religion, political leanings...and well...immigration
status. I was only curious about your opinion from the gender aspect, though.
Where in Europe have you been?
re #42
I'd much rather be Jewish in the US than anywhere else in the world
other than Israel.
I've been to several countries in Eastern Europe where being a Jew is less
of a big deal than in the USA. Of course, I'm not talking about places like
Germany where they tax you just for declaring you have any faith. Your story
of Canada sounds more about government beauracracy than it does racism.
|
naftee
|
|
response 69 of 186:
|
Jan 19 00:40 UTC 2006 |
Canada's got lotsa government beaurocracy. Quebec's got the most. Yessir.
|
richard
|
|
response 70 of 186:
|
Jan 19 01:09 UTC 2006 |
I think the Democrats have a chance to recapture one of the bodies of
Congress this year. This illegal wiretapping and the payola and
corrupting scandals are all adding up to a clear picture of gop
politicians as being often on the take and being willing to subert the
law.
I also think the Democrats will regain the White House in 2008. Bush
will drown in the endless war in Iraq and all the dead bodies, and the
corruption and payola scandals and the soaring defecit. Eight years
will be more than enough for most people to realize the Bush
Administration has been a big failure/mistake, and the easiest way to
rectify a mistake is to put the predecessors back in power. Yes, we
will have the first ever woman president, as Hillary Clinton is all but
certain to be the nominee and can clearly make that message that the
world was better eight years ago.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 71 of 186:
|
Jan 19 01:19 UTC 2006 |
If Richard is convinced that the scandals currently plaguing the GOP
will translate into results in the next election, I'll offer him a
wager: I predict that Tom DeLay will be re-elected to Congress in
the coming election. The wager I propose is: if DeLay is re-elected,
Richard donates $20 to Grex; if DeLay runs and is defeated I donate
the $20, and the wager is called off if DeLay is ineligible or for
some other reason does not run in the 2006 election.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 186:
|
Jan 19 01:24 UTC 2006 |
You aren't willing to take an even bet based just on whether DeLay gets
another term or not?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 73 of 186:
|
Jan 19 02:12 UTC 2006 |
I'm proposing an even-money bet predicated on the requirement that DeLay
runs in the election. If you don't like the wager, propose another.
Anyway, since you bring it up, I'm willing to be "generous" with the wager
terms because it's such a sucker bet anyway. If Richard really wants to
participate we can make the terms of the wager that DeLay is returned to
(Congressional) office (not his leadership post) in 2006. That allows
for him to be hit by a bus, assassinated by terrorists, even for him to
experience a genuine religious epiphany (as opposed to the phony, morally
reprehensible and compassionless brand of pseudo-Christianity he's been
peddling successfully for years) and join a cloistered monastic order
somewhere. Because I'm pretty sure that DeLay's re-election in 2006 is
a safe bet. Who's got $20 that says otherwise?
|
richard
|
|
response 74 of 186:
|
Jan 19 02:15 UTC 2006 |
mcnally thats a sucker's bet, because tom delay is from a VERY
conservative district. Tom Delay could get re-elected in his district,
if he was running as the republican, even if he was up on murder
charges.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 75 of 186:
|
Jan 19 02:43 UTC 2006 |
I never pretended it wasn't a sucker bet, in fact I say exactly that
in #73. My point is that despite widespread dissatisfaction with
current officeholders in the legislative and executive branches that
I nevertheless expect very little to change as a result of the 2006
Congressional elections. The wager offer is a way of driving that
point home and I'm not at all surprised that you wouldn't want to take
me up on the offer.
Things are not going to change unless people get a whole lot angrier
than they are now, and even then the change will not be revolutionary.
|