actually, i'd be surprised if the minnesota dwi laws differ all that much from the general dwi laws of the rest of the country.
That's surely true. I just don't get a chance to read them and see how ridiculous they truly are and think about it every day.
The whole premise behind DWI is presumably that if you are driving under a qualified state of intoxication, you are inherently doing something dangerous. And yet, some unknown but vast number of times, people drive under that state and don't do any harm. It doesn't add up.
It is against the law for me NOT to help him, so there is no life choice to be made.
Yeah, well that's the sucky part of the equation. No law should force you to undergo harm or the threat of harm.
Why isn't it helping the company? I'd have to find some statistics but, drug & alcohol users generally cost a company more than non substance abusers. It's in the companies interest to not hire those people.
You can find your statistics, and I'll find mine, if you want, that say that's not true. Then there's always the stress issue. What's most likely the number one health problem in most workplaces? Stress. What's the number one stress reliever in America? Drugs.
And then there's caffeine. Hmmm...it's a drug...that helps performance! Guess we can allow that one.
I don't know what you mean by unfairly discriminatory?
Most employee drug tests don't screen for alcohol, for example. They won't screen out a cough syrup addict, or any number of legal drug abuse situations, for another example. They let through people who are on prescribed treatments (but which could be impairing them considerably).
Then in California, where marijuana is condsidered medicine, the irrational nature of the policy gets exposed. Now you have people who needpot to be able to function well enough to work! You have a doctor saying "this person is fine to work, as long as they have their cannabis." If the last word in that sentence was zoloft or whatever (some "o.k." mood-altering drug), then the person would have no problem. If it's cannabis, then they are being unfairly discriminated against, for their choice of medicine, or the nature of their illness.
Which I still think a company has the right to do, but that doesn't mean they should.
Distrust? Are we to trust people on their word that they are not drug users?
Yes, unless you want to distrust them.
Invasion? If I'm paying someone to do a job I don't think it too much to ask that they not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
It's not. But it may be too much to ask that they give to you their urine, or their blood, or their mucous, or a piece of their hair. To me, that's a whole different thing than asking that someone not be under the influence. You're asking them to give you the ability to find out tremendous amounts of things about them, and for that information to be viewed and handled by a number of people who you don't even know. This is doctor-level information we're talking about-- stuff that is covered by its own huge body of laws. Your DNA is in that specimen too, your unique life blueprint.
It's nowhere near the same thing as "ask that they not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol". It's more like "ask for their bodily fluids, wherein lies the deepest secrets of their physical existence."
And in fact ares, this is Exactly what the kids will do, among other things, to screw-up the system so bad that schools will stop doing the tests.
After all... These are teenagers, and they can be a most intelligent bunch when confronted with the "Establishment" trying to impose it's will on them in such a way.
what did i say earlier about trusting drug/sex/alcohol/smoking surveys? there's not a person i know who ever answered one of those things honestly.
Classrooms were fine when we used to need to train our kids to be good obedient factory workers, but now that good obedient cubicle workers are more in need, prison cells make better sense.
There would also be no more confusion about which ones we can test. Obviously, anyone in prison can be tested for whatever we choose. After all, they're just prisoners. If we just upgrade our kids to full prisoner status, it'll smooth the whole indoctrination process right up.
A 1999 SAMSHA study reveals workers reporting current drug use were more likely to have worked for three or more employers, to have voluntarily left an employer in the past year, and skipped one or more days of work in the past month. In those occupations identified with the highest rates of drug information and policies in the workplace, employees reported significantly lower rates of current drug use and heavy drinking......
Results of a multi-variant analysis of applicants for Postal Service employment reviewed pre-employment drug tests, attendance and work performance records to determine that applicants testing positive were 66% more likely to be absent and 77% more likely to be discharged within 3 years of hire than applicants testing negative for illicit drugs. Had the Postal Service screened out all postal service applicants with positive drug tests in 1987, this would have saved approximately $52 million by1989.......
A 2-year study of railroad occupational accident investigations and analysis of post-accident tests revealed positive test findings were more common in fatal than non-fatal accidents. In approximately 1/3 of the accidents associated with positive drug test results, alcohol and/or drug use was determined to be related to accident causation.
What is it about pointless bomb throwing like that Williams column that fascinates you so, jethro?
I bet you would be one of the first in line to criticize professors at liberal arts universities. But when the professor is a flaky right-winter instead of a flaky left-winger, you'll hang on his every word.
I have a suggestion. TownHall does have some great articles but when you post them daily they tend to lose their punch. Pick out the best one and post that once a week or once and a while, but after a while the become Scipioesque and people page through them. So post one once and a while and they are more apt to get read by more people, but hey it's just an idea, do whatever you'd like.
Walter Williams -- a man profoundly pleased with himself -- wanted to float the wildly popular notion that maybe Southern secession should have been allowed to occur.
That's not even popular in the South. Maybe especially in the South.
I wonder what would America look like today if the confederacy had won ? That would be wierd, getting stopped at the "border" to enter the south, the border guard hick asking you questions,,,, What's your purpose for visiting Georigia today yankee ? Well sir, I am here as a vlounteer to drop off these english books,,,,,(guard) Step out of the car sir, books arent allowed we'll have to confiscate them.
Rick, I know most in the south are in modern times as JT said there are still some holdout wacko's who say they're gonna do it again. I say go ahead, lose again, it would be like the French saying, we're gonna do it again. For sale: French rifle, never fired, only dropped once. :) Sorry couldn't resist ;)
Since we're talking history, what would Paris look like today if the French hadn't turned the city over to the Nazis, opting instead to fight against overhwhelming odds?
Berlin, perhaps? Any other German city where hardly anything is more than 50 years old?
Wasn't the pholosophy something like: Let them in. Today they have the power to take it, but tomorrow they won't have the power to keep it.
So gather round gather round children/ Get down well just get down children/ Get loud well you can be loud and be proud/ And you can be proud here/ Be proud to a rebel 'cause the south's gonna do it again.....Charlie Daniels
The French had little choice in the matter. Their army was in tatters by the time the Germans were in range of Paris. The Maginot line only caused the Gerrys about a 2 day delay. Hitler could have leveled gay paris to ashes if he wanted to humilitate the French over versaiiles. for once he listened to his advisors who felt it would cause further outrage if a jewel such as Paris were destroyed. The French probably did help the cause by opening the gates to the city. But in 1940 I doubt the French had any confidence that the seemingly unstoppable blitzkreig would be ousted.
Speaking of the south and history, the reparations for slavery crowd is back at it. This time they are using the courts in suing companies. Amazing, what a waste of time and money.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — The great-great-granddaughter of a South Carolina slave opened a new phase in a national debate Tuesday when she sued three companies in federal court for a share of the profits they allegedly gained from slavery.
The companies should counter sue those bastards. Such a frivolous lawsuit shouldn't even be allowed.
I agree, That's why we should adopt the English system where the loser pays all legal costs of the other party and may be fined for filing such frivolous lawsuits. The problem is that many companies settle lawsuits to save the cost of litigation. They say well they will the other party will settle for 20,000 and it will cost us 30,000 to defend it. Even though everyone knows it;s a bogus case they end up paying it and figure their saving 10,000. And WE all end up paying. How a judge could even allow a lawsuit like that to proceed is beyond me.
And you are also right about it doing nothing to help ease tensions, no one alive today had any involvement in slavery, perhaps my family could sue the south or ask blacks for money since my ggg granddad was wounded fighting for the north. Sound ludicrous, yes it is, just as ludicrous as someone suing because of something they were never around for.
If you listen to them, they don't even care about the money. It's all about "Look what you did to us". We're supposed to feel guilty. Nevermind that my family was still living in Sweden until 1898.
Walter Williams -- a man profoundly pleased with himself -- wanted to float the wildly popular notion that maybe Southern secession should have been allowed to occur.
Written like a man that has no concept of hsitory and one that doesn't really care about it.
That's not even popular in the South. Maybe especially in the South.
Nevermind that my family was still living in Sweden until 1898.
even later than that here. the whole concept is utterly ridiculous. no one alive in this country right now did anything do anyone else alive in this country right now with regard to slavery 140+ years ago. i don't buy for one minute that this isn't about money.
That's what I don't get about reparations or their argument. I would define racism as doing wrong, evil or mistreating someone soely due to their race, religion, creed or sexual preference. Or based upon the color of their skin. So how do they get away with no one calling them a racist? Generally black Americans say that they have been persecuted, confined, held down, opressed and mistreated by white people. Of course they have, I would never deny or argue that. They recieved horrendous treatment at the hands of white people and were abused for many many years. There are many blemishes and shameful incidnets of hatred and racism in this country, fortunately many people saw the ignorance in there thinking. Many things have been done by this country also to end it. What I detest is someone saying, well you're white and therefore just because I'm white, I am somehow guilty and or a racist. That in itself is a racist statement. Condemming an entire race and or races is just as wrong. claiming that somehow I and others should pay for reparations to someone who wasn't a slave by someone who had nothing to do with slavery is ridiculous. You are so right about it doing nothing but divide us again. After 9-11 I heard many only referring to themselves as Americans. Until we do that daily and stop this foolish notion of everyone being seprate and see ourselves only as Americans that are in this together the divides will only continue. When we stop using quotas and hyphenated cultural idenities will we be working toghether instead of separate entities. be proud of your ancestors heritage absoloutely, just remember that you have a new heritage it's called being an American.
THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS
Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are:
1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative."
Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers."
2) "Violence only leads to more violence."
This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well- executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea.
3) "The CIA. and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us."
For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites." After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hi Ya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella." "Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years.
4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us."
Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to CNN - they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. At least, that was my excuse. It's the same today. Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World Trade? Oh who knows what the hell they want demonstrators) They all charged their black outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card before driving to the airport in their SUV's.
5) "Any profiling is racial profiling."
Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed. I think we're all crushed. Please come back. With a cherry on top? Why don't they just change their names, anyway? It's happened in the past. Think about it. How many Adolfs do you run into these days? Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something." Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't. It would never be the grandmother from Sioux City. Is it even possible? What are the odds? Winning a hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand? A million? And now a Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane and we're all supposed to cry about it because he's an Arab? Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that he filled out his forms incorrectly ---three times? And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane? And came back? Armed? Let's please all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt.Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them."
SO HERE'S what I resolve for the new year:
Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters.
Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking.
After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this.
Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshima's"? I wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
ok if i hadn't read it myself, i wouldn't have believed it. what they don't tell you is that you don't need to give them the filing fee and submit a copy of the photograph to have it protected. the photograph is copyrighted by you as soon as you click the shutter.
What good is it doing anyone to bring up something that happened 150 years ago?
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure. Do you agree with the efforts at closure represented by apologizing to the families of the black "syphillis experiment" soldiers? How about apologizing for the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII? How about at least the spirit of what we have tried to do for the Native Americans? (the substance of that spirit has been pretty wack, if you ask me)
Do you agree with the idea of the government (or anyone else) trying to be accountable for its crimes by acts of closure and "reparation" (just another word for closure, really)?
The slavery closure issue is different because it spans generations...but it's also different because of the truly disgusting nature of the offense, and because the offense itself spanned generations, and was institutionalized and comprehensive, in many ways.
The Native Americans have been given many special reparations, due to the extreme nature of the advantage that was taken of them by the U.S.. Blacks were taken advantage of in a different way, but it was undoubtedly extreme, and undoubtedly damaging-- not just to individuals, but to the whole culture (the whole country even).
Another problem I have with the reparations debate is, they never addresses the role that African nations had in the slave trade.
Never? That is weird. I wonder what "they" are trying to hide. Or maybe it's that "they" can't sue African nations through our courts, nor try them through the courts of public opinion in our media...so why would they mention it?
There in denial about that and besides, there isn't any money for the most part to be had there.
True about the money. As far as they, and their denial go-- who is this "they" you two are talking about? You mean them Coloreds? The Negroes? Yeah, dey's always talking de shit, Massa! Dey's talkin' it behind yo back, yessuh! I's seen 'em back behind the woodshed, talkin' up a storm about how dey wasn't gonna talk about de slave trade in Africa. Oh, yessuh, you bet dey was talkin, and denialin' up a stom, yessuh!
You talk about them dividing up the country...them...they...those others. "Damn them whining, uppity negroes. Won't they just let it rest already?!" Yeah...it's them dividing up the country...and what exactly are you doing? Bringing the country together? Could you show me where in your comments you are doing anything other than dividing?
(FWIW, IIRC Farrakahn talked about the African slave traders at the Million Man March...and presumably that's not the only time.)
If you listen to them, they don't even care about the money. It's all about "Look what you did to us". We're supposed to feel guilty. Nevermind that my family was still living in Sweden until 1898.
I only saw one quote from the plaintiffs in that story, and I didn't feel like it was talking to me. Here's the quote:
"We are finally holding corporations accountable for their actions against my ancestors," Farmer-Paellmann, a researcher of the role of slaves in U.S. business history, said after filing the suit.
I don't see where they are blaming JT's Swedish family at all. Where in that article does it say you are supposed to feel guilty? My ancestors came over on the first boat, and it sounds like you felt more guilt-stabbed by the article than I did.
It isn't about blaming blameless whites for anything. These lawsuits (and any ones that might come against the government) are against entities that did exist back then (presumably...that seems to be the basis). Those entities made gains from their participation in a crime against a culture, and the culture suffered damage from same.
It's about making things even...and I don't think the money is a big part of it, though economic justice would seem to need to be part of any closure formula for slavery.
It's funny...you folks with your "get over it." It's still in the freakin' Constitution...right there in black and white (so to speak). You think getting over it is just like that? For the vast majority of our country's history, blacks -- all blacks -- have been secondhand citizens, by law, and by many other means and measures. The effects of that are still well in effect.
"Get over it! (Then wake up to it again the next morning.)"
There are reasons why I take issue with most of the reparations plans I've heard, but the facts that "they" need to get over it, and that "they" are dividing the country, are not two of them.
"Damn them whining, uppity negroes. Won't they just let it rest already?!"
You went way off base with that one. I have known these people posting here for many years now and none of them think that way. These are good people that you are trying to persecute with your words. You may disagree with them, but please don't try to portray them as klansmen. You can do better than that.
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure.
So how is money going to bring about a closure that the many people who died in battle to free the slaves couldn't?
My wife has traced her history back a long ways. Her family has had a person or more in every war since the Revolutionary War, including the Civil War. They did not own slaves, but they did allow many others to. In reperations for that, they gave their lives to free those slaves. But now that isn't enough.
Please explain why some should get tax money from my wife's family or from my family that didn't even arrive here until the early 1900's. This isn't about some "uppity negro" as you have reduced it to, this is about fairness. And yes, it has caused a divide in our country. It can be witnessed here and elsewhere.
one little correction dan, the civil war was not fought to free slaves. it was fought over this clause in the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
now the power in question was a matter of who is allowed to legalise or criminalise slavery, and as the constitution at that time granted no such power to the federal government, it should have been left to the individual states. the feds didn't see it that way though. thus, we have the civil war, in which we killed more of ourselves than were killed in the rest of the wars in american history combined.
oh, i'm not saying that slavery wasn't the right in question. it was. were it something a bit less critical to the economy of the south than slavery, the civil war might not have ever happened. hell, the feds interfere with states all the time (reducing the bac limit to 0.8, raising the legal drinking age to 21, etc.) and for the most part, no one really cares.
That's surely true. I just don't get a chance to read them and see how ridiculous they truly are and think about it every day.
The whole premise behind DWI is presumably that if you are driving under a qualified state of intoxication, you are inherently doing something dangerous. And yet, some unknown but vast number of times, people drive under that state and don't do any harm. It doesn't add up.
Yeah, well that's the sucky part of the equation. No law should force you to undergo harm or the threat of harm.
You can find your statistics, and I'll find mine, if you want, that say that's not true. Then there's always the stress issue. What's most likely the number one health problem in most workplaces? Stress. What's the number one stress reliever in America? Drugs.
And then there's caffeine. Hmmm...it's a drug...that helps performance! Guess we can allow that one.
Most employee drug tests don't screen for alcohol, for example. They won't screen out a cough syrup addict, or any number of legal drug abuse situations, for another example. They let through people who are on prescribed treatments (but which could be impairing them considerably).
Then in California, where marijuana is condsidered medicine, the irrational nature of the policy gets exposed. Now you have people who needpot to be able to function well enough to work! You have a doctor saying "this person is fine to work, as long as they have their cannabis." If the last word in that sentence was zoloft or whatever (some "o.k." mood-altering drug), then the person would have no problem. If it's cannabis, then they are being unfairly discriminated against, for their choice of medicine, or the nature of their illness.
Which I still think a company has the right to do, but that doesn't mean they should.
Yes, unless you want to distrust them.
It's not. But it may be too much to ask that they give to you their urine, or their blood, or their mucous, or a piece of their hair. To me, that's a whole different thing than asking that someone not be under the influence. You're asking them to give you the ability to find out tremendous amounts of things about them, and for that information to be viewed and handled by a number of people who you don't even know. This is doctor-level information we're talking about-- stuff that is covered by its own huge body of laws. Your DNA is in that specimen too, your unique life blueprint.
It's nowhere near the same thing as "ask that they not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol". It's more like "ask for their bodily fluids, wherein lies the deepest secrets of their physical existence."
WOW, best discussion I have seen in a long time!
And in fact ares, this is Exactly what the kids will do, among other things, to screw-up the system so bad that schools will stop doing the tests.
After all... These are teenagers, and they can be a most intelligent bunch when confronted with the "Establishment" trying to impose it's will on them in such a way.
what did i say earlier about trusting drug/sex/alcohol/smoking surveys? there's not a person i know who ever answered one of those things honestly.
Classrooms were fine when we used to need to train our kids to be good obedient factory workers, but now that good obedient cubicle workers are more in need, prison cells make better sense.
There would also be no more confusion about which ones we can test. Obviously, anyone in prison can be tested for whatever we choose. After all, they're just prisoners. If we just upgrade our kids to full prisoner status, it'll smooth the whole indoctrination process right up.
A 1999 SAMSHA study reveals workers reporting current drug use were more likely to have worked for three or more employers, to have voluntarily left an employer in the past year, and skipped one or more days of work in the past month. In those occupations identified with the highest rates of drug information and policies in the workplace, employees reported significantly lower rates of current drug use and heavy drinking......
Results of a multi-variant analysis of applicants for Postal Service employment reviewed pre-employment drug tests, attendance and work performance records to determine that applicants testing positive were 66% more likely to be absent and 77% more likely to be discharged within 3 years of hire than applicants testing negative for illicit drugs. Had the Postal Service screened out all postal service applicants with positive drug tests in 1987, this would have saved approximately $52 million by1989.......
A 2-year study of railroad occupational accident investigations and analysis of post-accident tests revealed positive test findings were more common in fatal than non-fatal accidents. In approximately 1/3 of the accidents associated with positive drug test results, alcohol and/or drug use was determined to be related to accident causation.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Index.html
Did I read some of the posts correctly? There is someone that thinks DWI laws are ridiculous?
Nations are poor for at least three reasons: They have the wrong governmental system, which does not allow citizens to choose their leaders; they have the wrong economic system, which stifles free enterprise and discourages capital investment; and/or they have the wrong religious system, which tells them they must pacify an angry deity, not serve a loving God who has a purpose for their lives.
What comes across as the most important source of Clinton's uniqueness as president is the nearly unbelievable degree of his essential unfitness to be president--his profound immaturity, his pathological selfishness, his cynicism, above all his relentless corruption.
In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.
What is it about pointless bomb throwing like that Williams column that fascinates you so, jethro?
I bet you would be one of the first in line to criticize professors at liberal arts universities. But when the professor is a flaky right-winter instead of a flaky left-winger, you'll hang on his every word.
It is a lesson in history. Maybe someone can learn from it. Probably not you, Lundstrom, but someone.
Townhall.com for a history lesson?
Jethro,
I have a suggestion.
TownHall does have some great articles but when you post them daily they tend to lose their punch. Pick out the best one and post that once a week or once and a while, but after a while the become Scipioesque and people page through them. So post one once and a while and they are more apt to get read by more people, but hey it's just an idea, do whatever you'd like.
Townhall.com for a history lesson?
A lesson in needling.
Walter Williams -- a man profoundly pleased with himself -- wanted to float the wildly popular notion that maybe Southern secession should have been allowed to occur.
That's not even popular in the South. Maybe especially in the South.
Rick, I knew some in the south that still believe "The South's gonna do it again".
Some people believe there are pixies in the forests, too.
I wonder what would America look like today if the confederacy had won ? That would be wierd, getting stopped at the "border" to enter the south, the border guard hick asking you questions,,,, What's your purpose for visiting Georigia today yankee ? Well sir, I am here as a vlounteer to drop off these english books,,,,,(guard) Step out of the car sir, books arent allowed we'll have to confiscate them.
I love when they say the "South's gonna do it again" I'd like to ask them, what lose another war again? LOL
My wife's from Atlanta.
The Confederacy holds no romantic charm with her family.
LOL!
My perspective is, they can have their own country.
Just think......No Bill Clinton as OUR President.
:-)
Rick, I know most in the south are in modern times as JT said there are still some holdout wacko's who say they're gonna do it again. I say go ahead, lose again, it would be like the French saying, we're gonna do it again. For sale: French rifle, never fired, only dropped once. :) Sorry couldn't resist ;)
Since we're talking history, what would Paris look like today if the French hadn't turned the city over to the Nazis, opting instead to fight against overhwhelming odds?
Berlin, perhaps? Any other German city where hardly anything is more than 50 years old?
Wasn't the pholosophy something like: Let them in. Today they have the power to take it, but tomorrow they won't have the power to keep it.
So gather round gather round children/
Get down well just get down children/
Get loud well you can be loud and be proud/
And you can be proud here/
Be proud to a rebel 'cause the south's gonna do it again.....Charlie Daniels
Rick,
The French had little choice in the matter. Their army was in tatters by the time the Germans were in range of Paris. The Maginot line only caused the Gerrys about a 2 day delay. Hitler could have leveled gay paris to ashes if he wanted to humilitate the French over versaiiles. for once he listened to his advisors who felt it would cause further outrage if a jewel such as Paris were destroyed. The French probably did help the cause by opening the gates to the city. But in 1940 I doubt the French had any confidence that the seemingly unstoppable blitzkreig would be ousted.
Speaking of the south and history, the reparations for slavery crowd is back at it. This time they are using the courts in suing companies. Amazing, what a waste of time and money.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/2940765.htm
Speaking of the south and history, the reparations for slavery crowd is back at it.
Man that pisses me off! Idiots like that divide this country even further.
What good is it doing anyone to bring up something that happened 150 years ago?
The companies should counter sue those bastards. Such a frivolous lawsuit shouldn't even be allowed.
Speaking of the French......
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48888,00.html
Rightist presidential candidate Alain Madelin called the shooting, "This American-style byproduct, we wished not to have in France."
Yeah, it's all America's fault! What a Doofus Bo Bo.
I agree, That's why we should adopt the English system where the loser pays all legal costs of the other party and may be fined for filing such frivolous lawsuits. The problem is that many companies settle lawsuits to save the cost of litigation. They say well they will the other party will settle for 20,000 and it will cost us 30,000 to defend it. Even though everyone knows it;s a bogus case they end up paying it and figure their saving 10,000. And WE all end up paying. How a judge could even allow a lawsuit like that to proceed is beyond me.
And you are also right about it doing nothing to help ease tensions, no one alive today had any involvement in slavery, perhaps my family could sue the south or ask blacks for money since my ggg granddad was wounded fighting for the north. Sound ludicrous, yes it is, just as ludicrous as someone suing because of something they were never around for.
Another problem I have with the reparations debate is, they never addresses the role that African nations had in the slave trade.
JT,
There in denial about that and besides, there isn't any money for the most part to be had there.
If you listen to them, they don't even care about the money. It's all about "Look what you did to us". We're supposed to feel guilty. Nevermind that my family was still living in Sweden until 1898.
Walter Williams -- a man profoundly pleased with himself -- wanted to float the wildly popular notion that maybe Southern secession should have been allowed to occur.
Written like a man that has no concept of hsitory and one that doesn't really care about it.
That's not even popular in the South. Maybe especially in the South.
It was in 1860-61.
It was in 1860-61.
Ah, the good old days.
It is amazing how often liberals always miss the point. Maybe that is why we have the problems we do.
Yes, it's all the damn Liberals fault.
God, I long for 1861.
You are catching on, JT!!!!
Nevermind that my family was still living in Sweden until 1898.
even later than that here. the whole concept is utterly ridiculous. no one alive in this country right now did anything do anyone else alive in this country right now with regard to slavery 140+ years ago. i don't buy for one minute that this isn't about money.
This is the kind of e-mail that I get presumably from fold:
Date: 26 Mar 2002 13:58:15 -0800
To: jethrobodine
From: rvingiscooler
Subject: Hey S*******...?
Jethro, you a******... Come on over to "Take The Gloves Off".
 You asked, I have given you a place. Give me your best shot, you
jerkoff LOSER.
Got the stones, little man?
A class act no doubt.
JT,
That's what I don't get about reparations or their argument. I would define racism as doing wrong, evil or mistreating someone soely due to their race, religion, creed or sexual preference. Or based upon the color of their skin. So how do they get away with no one calling them a racist? Generally black Americans say that they have been persecuted, confined, held down, opressed and mistreated by white people. Of course they have, I would never deny or argue that. They recieved horrendous treatment at the hands of white people and were abused for many many years. There are many blemishes and shameful incidnets of hatred and racism in this country, fortunately many people saw the ignorance in there thinking. Many things have been done by this country also to end it. What I detest is someone saying, well you're white and therefore just because I'm white, I am somehow guilty and or a racist. That in itself is a racist statement. Condemming an entire race and or races is just as wrong. claiming that somehow I and others should pay for reparations to someone who wasn't a slave by someone who had nothing to do with slavery is ridiculous. You are so right about it doing nothing but divide us again. After 9-11 I heard many only referring to themselves as Americans. Until we do that daily and stop this foolish notion of everyone being seprate and see ourselves only as Americans that are in this together the divides will only continue. When we stop using quotas and hyphenated cultural idenities will we be working toghether instead of separate entities. be proud of your ancestors heritage absoloutely, just remember that you have a new heritage it's called being an American.
THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS
Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such
surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they
are:
1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative."
Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it
with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good"
doesn't mean "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the
bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our
country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always
will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and
affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth
and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost
town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The
Producers."
2) "Violence only leads to more violence."
This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy
League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and
hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence.
Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete,
fully-thought-through, professional, well- executed violence never leads
to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead.
That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back
into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea.
3) "The CIA. and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us."
For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the
ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not
protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield
Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best
way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites."
After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away."
This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate.
Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not
possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our
satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part.
It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of
the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring
Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say
"Hi Ya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella."
"Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll
be telling for years.
4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us."
Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate
cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton
John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people,
you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power.
Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the
killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to
CNN - they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of
a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all
the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college
kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final
papers and spend more time drinking. At least, that was my excuse. It's the
same today. Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World Trade? Oh who knows
what the hell they want demonstrators) They all charged their black
outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card before driving to the airport in
their SUV's.
5) "Any profiling is racial profiling."
Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the
New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the
gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of
reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too
much Drakkar. I'm crushed. I think we're all crushed. Please come back.
With a cherry on top? Why don't they just change their names, anyway?
It's happened in the past. Think about it. How many Adolfs do you run
into these days? Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw
on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old
grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something."
Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't. It would never be the
grandmother from Sioux City. Is it even possible? What are the odds? Winning a
hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand? A million? And now a
Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane and we're all supposed to
cry about it because he's an Arab? Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do
with the fact that he filled out his forms incorrectly ---three times?
And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane?
And came back? Armed? Let's please all stop singing "We Are the World"
for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the
floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting
Mt.Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't
offend them."
SO HERE'S what I resolve for the new year:
Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters.
Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking.
After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor
says, we didn't start this.
Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshima's"? I
wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Sloop,
That was excellent simply excellent ! What was that from ? Thanks
You people will like this one, but wouldn't believe me if I didn't provide the link to the official U.S. Copywright Office frequently asked questions.
Check it out
It is question #58 if the link doesn't work correctly.
ok if i hadn't read it myself, i wouldn't have believed it. what they don't tell you is that you don't need to give them the filing fee and submit a copy of the photograph to have it protected. the photograph is copyrighted by you as soon as you click the shutter.
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure. Do you agree with the efforts at closure represented by apologizing to the families of the black "syphillis experiment" soldiers? How about apologizing for the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII? How about at least the spirit of what we have tried to do for the Native Americans? (the substance of that spirit has been pretty wack, if you ask me)
Do you agree with the idea of the government (or anyone else) trying to be accountable for its crimes by acts of closure and "reparation" (just another word for closure, really)?
The slavery closure issue is different because it spans generations...but it's also different because of the truly disgusting nature of the offense, and because the offense itself spanned generations, and was institutionalized and comprehensive, in many ways.
The Native Americans have been given many special reparations, due to the extreme nature of the advantage that was taken of them by the U.S.. Blacks were taken advantage of in a different way, but it was undoubtedly extreme, and undoubtedly damaging-- not just to individuals, but to the whole culture (the whole country even).
Never? That is weird. I wonder what "they" are trying to hide. Or maybe it's that "they" can't sue African nations through our courts, nor try them through the courts of public opinion in our media...so why would they mention it?
True about the money. As far as they, and their denial go-- who is this "they" you two are talking about? You mean them Coloreds? The Negroes? Yeah, dey's always talking de shit, Massa! Dey's talkin' it behind yo back, yessuh! I's seen 'em back behind the woodshed, talkin' up a storm about how dey wasn't gonna talk about de slave trade in Africa. Oh, yessuh, you bet dey was talkin, and denialin' up a stom, yessuh!
You talk about them dividing up the country...them...they...those others. "Damn them whining, uppity negroes. Won't they just let it rest already?!" Yeah...it's them dividing up the country...and what exactly are you doing? Bringing the country together? Could you show me where in your comments you are doing anything other than dividing?
(FWIW, IIRC Farrakahn talked about the African slave traders at the Million Man March...and presumably that's not the only time.)
I only saw one quote from the plaintiffs in that story, and I didn't feel like it was talking to me. Here's the quote:
I don't see where they are blaming JT's Swedish family at all. Where in that article does it say you are supposed to feel guilty? My ancestors came over on the first boat, and it sounds like you felt more guilt-stabbed by the article than I did.
It isn't about blaming blameless whites for anything. These lawsuits (and any ones that might come against the government) are against entities that did exist back then (presumably...that seems to be the basis). Those entities made gains from their participation in a crime against a culture, and the culture suffered damage from same.
It's about making things even...and I don't think the money is a big part of it, though economic justice would seem to need to be part of any closure formula for slavery.
It's funny...you folks with your "get over it." It's still in the freakin' Constitution...right there in black and white (so to speak). You think getting over it is just like that? For the vast majority of our country's history, blacks -- all blacks -- have been secondhand citizens, by law, and by many other means and measures. The effects of that are still well in effect.
"Get over it! (Then wake up to it again the next morning.)"
There are reasons why I take issue with most of the reparations plans I've heard, but the facts that "they" need to get over it, and that "they" are dividing the country, are not two of them.
"Damn them whining, uppity negroes. Won't they just let it rest already?!"
You went way off base with that one. I have known these people posting here for many years now and none of them think that way. These are good people that you are trying to persecute with your words. You may disagree with them, but please don't try to portray them as klansmen. You can do better than that.
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure.
So how is money going to bring about a closure that the many people who died in battle to free the slaves couldn't?
My wife has traced her history back a long ways. Her family has had a person or more in every war since the Revolutionary War, including the Civil War. They did not own slaves, but they did allow many others to. In reperations for that, they gave their lives to free those slaves. But now that isn't enough.
Please explain why some should get tax money from my wife's family or from my family that didn't even arrive here until the early 1900's. This isn't about some "uppity negro" as you have reduced it to, this is about fairness. And yes, it has caused a divide in our country. It can be witnessed here and elsewhere.
one little correction dan, the civil war was not fought to free slaves. it was fought over this clause in the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
now the power in question was a matter of who is allowed to legalise or criminalise slavery, and as the constitution at that time granted no such power to the federal government, it should have been left to the individual states. the feds didn't see it that way though. thus, we have the civil war, in which we killed more of ourselves than were killed in the rest of the wars in american history combined.
The Civil War was fought over slavery. It doesn't matter how much high-minded veneer people at the time tried to put over it.
The South could talk States Rights until it was blue, but it doesn't change the reason. It only allows them to conveniently rationalize it..
oh, i'm not saying that slavery wasn't the right in question. it was. were it something a bit less critical to the economy of the south than slavery, the civil war might not have ever happened. hell, the feds interfere with states all the time (reducing the bac limit to 0.8, raising the legal drinking age to 21, etc.) and for the most part, no one really cares.
Take slavery out of the equation, and all the South's grievances (probably some legitimate) combined would not have resulted in a civil war.
That's my opinion, based on some history I've read.
that's what i just said. and ya know what? your opinion's probably not too far off.