In so doing, he guaranfuckingteed that he would get a black jury, instead of a white one.
That's MISTAKE NUMBER ONE.
............................................
That's my point. They'd buy what Cockring was sellin.
you need to get one of those black fellas to help you with your signal to noise ratio....
by now, everyone knows you were in the military....
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 5:42:05 PM
I was as disgusted by his book as anyone. I thought it was the most insane idea for ratings during sweeps month. However, he definitely had a right to write, publish and promote what he wanted and sell it on the free market. Why couldn't people do what I was willing to do? Don't watch it; don't buy the garbage book? Why agitate to censor it.
Not only was there censorship, but Rupert Murdoch himself stepped in to do it. Consider overt censorship of the news department-- by the business end of the corporation, in fact the most upper of upper management.
There's another lesson illustrated here. For conservatives, wouldn't this prove that the press is not liberal? If corporate management overtly interferes with the news-side of the business, doesn't it show that they have been doing it invisibly all along?
is greatly distorted.
Nobody censored O.J.
Murdoch censored himself. HE is the one footing the bills. O.J. has NO right for OTHER people to pay for O.J.'s speech.
Technically only the Government can commit illegal censorship.
I never said it was illegal, so that's not the issue. It was still censorship, though. It wasn't just Murdoch, either, though he was the one with the ax. It was also the agitation by people who objected to it. That was just as disturbing, much moreso, in fact. The mob action was more disturbing.
It was censorship. Yes, it was legal. It wasn't Murdoch censoring himself. It wasn't his voice; it wasn't his story; it wasn't his creation.
However, it was Murdoch's soapbox and bullhorn that were "rented" to OJ. He revoked them when he realized what the message was and how controversial it was. That is censorship of content, by definition.
My point with Murdoch was not that he wasn't right or wrong due to that censorship, that applies only to the "Mob Against OJ." With him, I was underscoring the fact of corporate management controlling the news.
Free speech isn't just a right and a matter of legality. It's a matter of principle, too. If it weren't a principle to be guarded, we wouldn't need that clause in the First Amendment.
What happens when a paper "censors itself" when the government begins to object? What if it's part of a conglomerate that has government contracts? There you have a censorship decision based on business, even though formally the government didn't do a thing. Like protecting your copyright, you get used to corporations doing this for business, you lose your claim in court when the censorship becomes more direct.
Moreover, we just shrug when it happens, we ultimately lose our shock and motivation when the government ultimately does it.
happenes every minute of every day, by nearly everyone. My issue is that when nearly everyone hears "censorship" they conjur up ugly or negative thoughts. Most censorship, I believe, is a good thing.
The First Amendment specifically applies to the Government restriction of speech.
Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to free paper and ink.
One could of course transisiton this into a discussion about the somewhat monopolistic nature of today's media sources.
most definitions, from wikipedia to Blacks infer some sort of moralistic, misconceived, illegitimate, etc purpose.
But being a Democrat with a thick hide, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how an idea or expression is harmful, as compared to the shitass judgment that chooses the crappy idea and the following action on that idea.
For example, "why don't we invade Iraq" is right up there with "why don't we fuck some sheep". But it's not the idea that causes the harm; in fact, if you can't express the idea, it's pretty hard to reject it.
OTOH: for some reason we are reluctant to hold people accountable for their choices and actions. We have a CinC who can go off on this misbegotten adventure and we fucking KNOW he's lying thru his teeth, and yet we don't horsewhip him.
Part of that is because WE elected him (well, almost) and we feel responsibile for choosing such a flaming asshole. And that's got a certain validity.
But we aren't married to him, and when he goes and commits crimes, are we responsible for that, too?
what about legal censorship?
I am disturbed because I wish Fox had gone through with it and suffered the consequences of being such a slimy organization. I loathe their news demagogurey (sp?).
I am not disturbed with their because it's not censorship but prudent business practice. There is not obligation for a business to publish anything. But you already know this. So I am not sure what your real point is.
just fucking hilarious.
It's probably about the only way that the families would have gotten paid, was to attach Murdoch's payments to OJ. Don't think Murdoch & OJ didn't think of that. They have lawyers, ya know?
The lesson here is that stupidity is not limited by any natural force.
All forms of censorship come from liberals!!
Who wrote and passed ALL of the "hate speech" laws?? LIBERALS!
Who fights to REMOVE Christian symbols and 10 commandments?? LIBERALS!
Who fights to remove Bibles from school libraries?? LIBERALS!
Who passes laws banning student-lead prayer in schools?? LIBERALS
Who champions the cause of "obsenity law" in reguards to the music industry?? LIBERALS!
The list goes back in history as far as laws banning certain type of speech exist, and OVERWHELMINGLY there is a LIBERAL who championed the cause!
Republicans can't be blamed, they just sit on their hands and do nothing with the power when they win it! (bunch of cowards and closet pervs!)
But the REAL danger is when so-called liberals gain power! THEY USE IT!! And more often than not they use it to LIMIT personal freedom in one way or another!
When was the last time you saw a "LIBERAL" vote to REPEAL a law?? They only pass more and more laws every time they come into session! layer upon layer, upon layer of laws!! ALL OF WHICH IMPOSE "LIMITS"!!!
LIBERALISM IS A FRAUD!!
You can't really be that nuts.
I didn't claim the Republicans are great, infact they are completely useless, but you still haven't answered the charge that Liberal CONTINUALLY push for and fight for LIMITING personal freedom, usually hidden under the guise of some "greater good" or "human right" bullshit!
Liberalism is some form of mental disorder that causes people to not be able to smell their own SHIT!
Limiting one persons behavior based on how it might make someone else "feel" is a liberal's definition of freedom! PROVE ME OTHERWISE!
you're fucking pathetic.
Where do you come up with this bullshit? I mean, shit like, "PROVE ME OTHERWISE!" Didn't your daddy tell you when he was bouncing you on his knee, that the moving party bears the burden of proof?
I'm guessing it wasn't exactly his "knee" he was bouncing you on,,, considering what a fucked up adult you turned out to be... We can't choose our parents, can we??
As to the burden of proof you shifted onto me while recalling fond memories of your father,,, Well, I started doing my research to validate my claims, which went quite easy, I simply goggled key words from my previous post and several instances came up,,, But If figured why bother reprinting things that you woudn't believe anyway... So I left my post empty, insulting and void if facts just like yours! I figure it must be the way you like posts since so many of yours follow that profile... INFACT! I did a 300 day search of your posting history and found that you posted 1406 times, and the vast majority of them contain no facts, no grounded arguments, and several are completely un-inteligable, like the ramblings of a homeless drunk... Soooo YES, the burden IS yours and it goes back WAY further that this thread!
and whatever you do, don't quit the day job.
I'm sure you thought you did, and feels right is close enough for your ilk.
but in your case, what's to lose?
There's no point in trying to reason with you until we can stop your moral-compass from spinning out of control... The first step in recovery from the Liberal-disorder it to admit you have a problem... OBVIOUSLY you are a LOOOOOONG way from recovery!
"LIBERALISM" is defined, but sadly the ACTIONS of those expressing their identity under that banner don't match the decription! SAD, because if what's said in this definition were true, then LIBERALS would be the answer to our nations current problem, but judged by liberal actions, they will only take a bad situation and worsen it!
than paying some preacher to tell you that you're relieved of responsibility by coming around and hollering "PRAISE CHEESES!!"
Ben - get this - that particular ritual doesn't change shit. Your world doesn't change. Your world-VIEW may change, if you're a truly simple fuck. And yeah, if enough of you morons band together shouting PRAISECHEESUS and refusing to pay your bills, you can be a real PITA.
Does that make you right or useful, or moral? Fuck no. Here you are, moderating a hooker board, and telling us that it's your struggle, but you're excused because you're not a leader, and besides, Foley was really a Democrat. What, you can't control your keyboard? WHo the FUCK do you expect to believe THAT?!
What it does is make you into preacher prey. That's your choice, whatever turns you on. Just leave us normal people the fuck alone.
And if what you decribed in your post is your understanding of salvation, then I can see why you are such a guilt-burdened tortured soul with misplaced emotions and knee-jerk opinions... God help you!
Swaggart.
It'd be easy to come up with some sort of rationalization; but you just say, hey, I'm saved, I don't have to make any effort to adhere to my code of conduct.
That is SO FUCKING COOL. You're a complete, overt hypocrite, and have no qualms whatever. You've got the morals of a fucking Mengele.
You are right however about Swaggart, and the rest like him, they are hypocrite, they preach a live sinlessly message and fuck whores in secret... I fuck whores openly and preach a message that I need redemption from my fallen sinful condition... There are no parallels that can be drawn here,,, you suck at reasoning...
You know precisely what you're going to do, you plan it days in advance and ongoing, you make no effort whatever to avoid it or rationalize it, and instead just say, "hey, I'm not gonna be responsible".
You know, the closest analogy I can think of here, is bankruptcy fraud.
I gotta say, I admire your nerve. You've got a really cool theology here, but I don't see the sense in the Jesus baggage. You have to believe that you, almost alone in the world, can channel a god who puts up with your transparent shit.
That really takes some nerve. if you're so sure of this, why the "fire insurance" line? Why not just ask god for an option on a ticket to Heaven?
Why not just drop the masquerade?
But it's a crock of shit too... The price for sin still needs to be paid, but thank God, I don't have to do it!
That your salvation allows you to INTEND to do any sort of "sin" (why not mass murder?) and still get your discharge in bankruptcy?
Man, you are one generous fellow. How would you feel about me stealing your goods? Send them to me UPS.
So you definitely think this is a good religion that we should all subscribe to, ie, do any fucking thing we want, and then get absolved. And you don't have any issues with that, and don't see any hypocrisy there, at all.
Because I'll tell you what courts call that sort of behavior, is a sham transaction, a fraud, a con. I realize that sort of view probably makes them all into unredeemed liberal sinners, but, there you have it.
"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
Actually there are MANY rewards for good behavior, and also punishments for bad behavor. But a persons "salvation" is neither... It's a free gift to those who believe... But all my immoral behavior does exclude me from perks and privilages in this life and the next... In that way, I'm the fool for knowing the truth, yet living the way I do...
any Biblical citation? Do you think I'm interested in listening to you or anybody else argue about how any particular interpretation of that, or casting tea leaves, should govern anybody's life?
So why do you bother citing it to me? Do you think that explains your reasoning? Of course it doesn't, because there are more Biblical interpretations than there are interpreters, and none of them have any connection to any concrete situation.
Ben, I have no fucking interest whatever in speaking in riddles, or listening to assholes speak in riddles to each other. People fuck enough things up without doing dumb shit like consulting the Bible to predict mideast politics.
You find me a version with tune specifications for my car, and I'll be impressed.
Your intrests have no bearing on what the truth is, just as you intrests have no hunger for truth either....
you aren't hooked up with any preachers, and AFAIK, your reviews are your only connection to humans.
It's your right, buddy. Just leave the rest of us alone.
-- Modified on 11/30/2006 1:53:34 PM
your posts are so far detached from any verifiable fact or intellectual discipline that they're hardly worth making fun of.
For a single recent example, exactly where do you get the idea that 80% of the press is Democrats? And that equates to "liberal" - whatever the hell that means.
Let's assume that your figure is correct. Does it occur to you that their views may be the result of tehir work, rather than vice versa?
See, feels right is close enough for you. Logic is irrelevant to you; GAAP are liberal conspiracies that limit personal freedom. It never fucking occurs to you that EVERY legal system, or lack thereof, limits somebody's personal freedom in some way. So you're so fucking helpless you can't cope with zoning or traffic regulations, and bitch instead. Do you realize that private agencies, like credit card companies, HMOs, insurance cos and banks have far more detailed and arbitrary regulations? And for example CA mandatory insurance originated with the Republicans of Orange county?
You just make this shit up, because it feels right, then you complain about other people. Ben, you wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit your ass.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Ben, do you even realize that there's no generally accepted definition of liberal or conservative; and that you're just slinging labels? I guess not.
Then there's this thing of your struggle with Christian principles, that you can take or leave a la carte, but push on others as a package recipe. Ben, if I'm to take you at face value, and not a massive joker, you're every bit as hypocrticial as Haggard and every other asshole televangelist that makes the news.
You just come up with this shit, and label people with it, with no fucking idea whatsoever what they actually do or believe.
your post wasn't worth answering. it's so fucking ridiculous, where could I begin?
When I think corporations, I don't think liberal hippies.
And which politicians/party do the top executives at those corporations donate money too?
Some links to help with that:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.newsmeat.com/
and the FEC.
And President Jimmy Carter is the one who signed the treaty on human rights that would have decriminalized indie prostitution. Congress still hasn't passed it. The only state in the US that has decriminalized indie prostitution (streetwalking is still illegal) is Rhode Island. Some of the most radical left-wing Democrats in America serve on the RI state legislature. The conservatives in Nevada have fucked things up royally with their regulated sweatshops commonly known as "brothels" or "ranches".
that should rate RI a separate regional board.
Some providers should weigh in and tell us how that works.
Yeah, NV is a bit fucked up. Most of the actual providing goes on the only place it's illegal, ie Las Vegas. And the ranches are so fucking expensive it's ridiculous. And about as appealing as industrial waste.
I think it's sad commentary race relations that venue played as large a role as it did in this case. Venue would be irrelevant were it not for the fact that miserymerchants jesse jack-off, sharkton, and all the other DEMOCRATS have ingrained in the black community a deep sense of distrust which OJ's lawyers were then able to exploit.
Notwithstanding the depth of REAL WRONGS done by racist cops, these ills are exacerbated by imaginary demons, drummed up by Democrat Snakeoil merchants.
This insures a 90+% voting block to keep the merchants in business and acting like power brokers in their communities, but it does NOTHING to improve the lives of these folks.
Today's ghettos are an edifice to failed liberal policies of Democratic racial demogauges.
There, that's more like what I was trying to say.
and no zin, Murdochs intervention does'nt prove shit. all it means is every once in a while the owner steps in when one of his idiot liberals clusterfucks something with a stupid idea.
""""If corporate management (ONCE??)overtly interferes with the news-side of the business, doesn't it show that they have been doing it invisibly all along?
uhhhhhhh, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
I can't see your face but surely you were giggling when you posited that.....
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 6:52:53 PM
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 9:48:53 PM
BK, shut yer trap long enough to actually think about the OJ trial.
That moron DA Garcetti got the case transferred downtown, because he wanted to micromanage it, instead of leaving it in Santa Monica. In so doing, he guaranfuckingteed that he would get a black jury, instead of a white one.
That's MISTAKE NUMBER ONE.
Secondly, you have to understand that OJ had the money and name to get several real lawyers, not some harried public defender who doesn't have the time to breathe anything but to cop a plea to something. The reality of the criminal court system is that whatever the court or jury thinks happened is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that standard only guarantees that an arrest is not an automatic conviction. Do you realize that most DAs have conviction rates well over 90%?
Next, you have some fucking moron who asks OJ to pull on his glove, to demonstrate that it fits. JESUS H TAPDANCING CHRIST!! How stupid do you have to be, to predict the result of THAT? NEVER ASK ANYTHING IF YOU AREN'T CERTAIN OF THE RESULT. That's the FIRST rule of trial practice.
Then they put this idiot Furman on. All this time he's been a detective, he's never really been cross-examined, and he wasn't prepared, and doesn't know that the WORST thing you can do is back off something. He should have gone in there and said, "look, we're in a stressful occupation. We say horrible things about suspects, and about each other, and about our wives and kids. None of that means we don't treat them fairly." Noooooooooo - he goes and gets himself caught in a lie.
NOW, you rocket scientist Republican, put yourself in the shoes of a black jury. I'm reading a police report today, and I KNOW that the cops are lying about parts of it. Eg the number of people involved in the arrest, the source of their information, etc., and all of this is generally harmless shucking & jiving, but if you think cops are to be trusted more than say, psychiatrists or convicted fucking serial perjurers, you got another think coming. ALL OF THIS SHIT IS APPROXIMATE. You don't get any better.
So this black jury is listening to this perjuring cop, and watching this silly road show, and asking, do we have a reasonable doubt about WTF is going on here? Well, NO SHIT.
But it's all a liberal conspiracy, BK. I'm part of that liberal conspiracy, because I trained one hell of a lot of little black kids to shoot people, and that's a damn good reason that Republicans should SIGN UP OR SHUT UP, because all the fucking 2nd amendments in the world aren't going to save their pathetic asses from somebody who has the nerve and skill to take that fucking weapon away from them and let them run 300m before they plug them with one (1) shot.
In so doing, he guaranfuckingteed that he would get a black jury, instead of a white one.
That's MISTAKE NUMBER ONE.
............................................
That's my point. They'd buy what Cockring was sellin.
you need to get one of those black fellas to help you with your signal to noise ratio....
by now, everyone knows you were in the military....
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 5:42:05 PM
(1) Garcetti blew it, not OJ or his lawyers; and (2) if your or my honkie asses had been on that jury, listening to almost all evidence coming thru a perjuring chief investigator, we SHOULD have had a reasonable doubt.
It would help you or any Republican to return to sanity if you could simply get some small grasp of objective reality. I realize that's a catch-22 for you, but it's not my burden to bear.
sometimes your full of crap and I'd rather ignore you
and sometimes your funnier than shit
problem is, you never know till you read the whole thing whether you're gonna get jack-off the dope, or Sgt Hulka, the Big Toe....
is what a Republican says when you've got him pinned to the wall.
BK, you're so full of shit, your eyse are brown.
saying garcetti fucked up by changing venue is saying the same thing in a different, that one jury pool was predisposed to believing sloganisms like,
"if the glove does'nt fit, you must aquit"
than another. You think that shit floats in WLA?
Why not?
How bout I do it in stickman for ya?
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 10:12:44 PM
but that would be your personal problem.
But if you don't like rhymes, why the fuck would you automatically believe a perjurer of a chief investigator? Do you not understand that all evidence must come thru a witness?
Rarely has someone promised so much, and delivered so little. Who else could say this:
""I'm sorry you're so comprehension challenged BK""
And this:""But if you don't like rhymes, why the fuck would you automatically believe a perjurer""
in the same post with a straight face?
Here's my suggetion to you:
-- Modified on 11/28/2006 10:53:32 PM
it's because you're a dumbshit who can't or doesn't use the information people put in front of you.
fucking stupid statement.
:""But if you don't like rhymes, why the fuck would you automatically believe a perjurer""
(1) you complain about cochran's rhyming argument. Is that any dumber than say haiku? Or a honkie who couldn't rhyme on a dare? Who gives a fuck? what is the substance of the issue? does the glove fit or not? I can think of a dozen reasons why it might or might not, and so should have darden. The point is that darden was stupid to pull that stunt, because he gave OJ the classic opportunity to demonstrate a fuckup.
Your claim that rhyming is shit, is shit itself.
(2) The more substantial issue is that the chief investigator perjured himself. Perhaps it was inconsequential, but the jury could not know. As I pointed out, Furman had a perfectly credible and logical explanation that he chose not to use, instead getting off on a side trail of prevarication.
Would you trust an associate like that? I wouldn't.
Perhaps you don't remember that Furman was the chief investigator. He directed the operation. You may not realize that almost all evidence (apart from self-authenticating documents like birth certificates, etc) has to be introduced thru a witness. So EVERY aspect of the operation is tainted by Furmans perjury.
Does the failure of Furman's testimony create a reasonable doubt? Of course it does. No, it doesn't make a verdict automatic. But it makes it reasonable and understandable. You could strike everything related to the glove from the record, and still get to the same result.
What I find amazing is your inability to see this. Instead you argue that it's all the fault of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who convince black people they're put upon. Well, you forget Martin Luther King, who was regarded pretty much the same way. That's not really the point - the point is, do you think it takes a particular leader to make blacks realize where they stand, as a group? You or I or anybody could have any opinion about the *cause* of that situation, but it doesn't change the situation itself.
Most reporters stick to the facts, as do most cops. But there's insitutional bias, like go for the ratings or the conviction. As I mentioned, I deal with this regularly, and I know that a fellow can be a more or less good guy, and still not a reliable witness, because he's shading it, or not telling the whole truth.
Do you think Furman was telling the truth? Why or why not? Can you look at cases individually, or are you limited to institutional biases?
Cochran's rhymes are not my taste, either. But they're not the point. Cochran is smart enough to know that if you say something tacky, people will remember it. You've remembered it. You'd have convicted in any circumstance, but you weren't on the jury, so he didn't give a shit about you. If YOU had been on the jury, I'm sure there would have been some Heisman trophy argument.
So why are you fixated on this issue? Well, BK, I think you're fixated on it because you're a simple fuck.
the mistakes a jury made from reading the newspaper & watching TV are complete jackass morons.
Juries are pretty much entitled to believe or disbelieve what they want, and you might have some respect for the fact that they sat thru every ass-aching minute of the evidence, while you were evading jury service (yes, Bill, we know about you and your phony-assed excuses), and there is a chance that they might know something about it that you didn't catch from the TV reports.
So sit down and STFU, already.
Much heat, little light. Think your rhetorical zeal may be driving away some like-minded compatriots?
US race relations. I agree, a scene of total despair [spelling?].
I see a 56th review. Hasn't that mellowed you just a little bit?
you're probably right, even for me, the tone was a bit harsh
Scarlet's a winner, to bad you're on the wrong coast...
convinced blacks they were being put upon. It's Jesse's fault, no black man might have on their own figured out that maybe there was something wrong here.
It takes Jesse & Al to make blacks figure out that about a quarter of all their men have done time, and regardless of whose fault that may be, they'd never be able to figure it out without Jesse & Al.
Before jesse & Al came along, why all them black folk hadn't a care in the world!! It was Jesses & Al that set them all up to this.
BK, you are one ignorant fuck. You don't have a clue that people said the exact same fucking thing about Martin Luther King Jr and his posse of merry pranksters; and regardless of what you might think of any of them, for you to think that a black jury needs malicious leadership to figure out that they're different, you are one truly ignorant guy.
I don't think it's the leaders who move the masses now; I think it's more a matter of the leaders fill a marketing niche. To say that Africanos would be less criminal, more content and less dependent on welfare if only they weren't manipulated by white liberals is... let's just say fundamentally disrespectful.
I know you're not a racist Bill, but you've been taken in by a popular argument which is just one link of obscurity away from saying that the Jew is using black man for muscle. Don't think that this argument hasn't been heard loud and clear in the Africano community. It has been rejected completely and repeatedly, and then the white people can think they are just so much smarter.
I know accusations of playing the race card are ready to come out, but to say that there must be some white people behind the way Africano's feel, isn't that say, very condescending to them? Probably one reason why Republicans have never captured their vote?
How does any of what you said square with another ethnic group: the Native Indian people were just as criminal, just as poor, just as drug dependent, just as discontent, dependent on welfare, and more of all of this before they could set up Casinos. Did you see any liberals manipulating that ethnic group? Did you see any prima donnas telling them how unfortunate they were?
Not only that, it's instructive how their lot has changed since they were allowed to set up Casinos and bring money into their reservations. They've set up schools, they've built houses and cleaned up their neighborhoods and much more. This despite, say, some demonstrated racism by white Republican big-shots who were hired to help them. (Abramoff).
Now, how does this square with your theory about Africanos?
No Bill, my face was not giggling when I wrote anything. (Did you see a "lol" anywhere?) Your point of view does show that you presume Murdoch hires liberals to handle the day to day decisions, and that a liberal must have made the decision. uhhhhhhh, NOOOOOO!
And uhhhhhhhhhhhh, NOOOOOOOOO!!! is not a counter-argument. Though in some political circles, grunts are considered to be exactly that.
-- Modified on 11/29/2006 12:15:52 PM
you have to know your market, and speak their language.
if you want to talk to a Republican, first, you have to CAPS LOCK.
Then, you have to come up with some completely amazing shithead one-liner idea, like, oh, FUCK THE CAMEL JOCKEYS!
You gotta make sure it doesn't involve them actually knowing that they're paying for anything. You know, free money, dodge the draft, shit like that.
Then you put it on a ribbon sticker, and sell it for $1 each. You can't forget that just because they're so many hollering chimps, you still have to pay your bills, and having enough money to court some babe is always nice, too.
when Republicans are in office?
Oh, let me guess, it's because Africanos (I like that one) VOTE Democratic. And that wouldn't be on account of their situation - no, it's the vote that causes the situation, not the other way around.
So you think if Africanos just believed in Rev Ike instead of Revs Jackson & Sharpton, everything would just come up roses, eh? Perception is reality - if you fucking deny something long enough, you can define Tobacco Road into Beverly Hills - or maybe spend your last $5 to paint the lenses of your rose colored glasses.
Ghettos couldn't possibly be the result of Republican policies, because the ghetto-dwellers are largely led by Democrats. that couldn't possibly be, because their leaders know the Republicans will fuck them at every turn, and the honkie crackers are just too dumb to realize they'll fuck them, too. They just use racial politics to set them on each other, while the likes of Abramoff and Cheney gut the country.
What fucking party enacted the "feed-to-breed" welfare system in country and strapped our economy with the burden of uncontrolled population growth in the "GETTO"??
DEMOCTATS DID THAT YOU FOOL!! Any time a Democrat talks about "welfare reform" it always means ADDING some new program or benefit! Sadly there's a bunch of spineless liberal Republican that usually jump on the bandwagon with him and the shit gets passed!
If the getto breeds and reproduces at at rate of 4 to 1, and the "working class" breeds and reproduces at a rate of 1.7 to 2, WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO PAY THE BILL FOR ALL THIS BLEEDING HEART SOCIAL-SERVICES BULLSHIT THAT THE DEMS KEEP CREATING???
Next you want free medical so we can pay for all that for them too! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!
that's a damn handy rationalization, isn't it? It couldn't possibly be that a guy doesn't have any money because he's not getting paid, and that couldn't possibly be connected to the social & economic structure - and whether you want to change that or not may be a matter of opinion, but if you need these folks, and put weapons in their hands and ask them to get there asses shot alongside you, you'd be real smart to treat them as equals. I know you haven't been there and can't relate, but I'd a whole lot rather have a black man I can rely on next to me, than GW Bush, Ted Fag Haggard or most other Republicans.
So, your prescription is pretty simple Darwinism, eh? Well, I don't know it's avoidable in the end, but the whole point of any team is to work together for mutual benefit; and if the team doesn't do that, you can't blame a man for not having loyalty to the team.
But since you don't have that experience, I can't expect you to understand. You don't need facts or observations of the outside world, you just come up with this stuff by reading your bible. So you don't know how people react - how can you be surprised?
Ben, you're an isolated fool in an ivory tower. It's your right, dude.
My argument aplies equally to Trailer-parks and other white-trash enclaves as it does to the getto...
Every race and culture has a "working segment" and a "parisite segment"... and the more you feed and shelter the "parisites" the more rapidly they grow!
It's a a fact Jack! And it transends ALL ethnic groups, societies, religions and even SPECIES! Why do you suspose endangered-species reproduce so well in captivity?? It's same principal you FUCK-NUT!!
BTW, GHetto was my word, you might try reading if you can't copy & paste.
So you know that all species have working and parasite segments.
In our own species, Bush 2 is an example of which? What about a 7/11 clerk? What about a fairy hairdresser? What about the corner orange-seller? What about people who pay for and draw insurance, like worker's comp, unemployment, etc? What about the girl down the street that got knocked up by your brother-in-law?
You're too fucking dumb to realize that we made our bed when we gave people the vote, and passed the 14th amendment; and now we have to live with the fact that all humans have equal votes and are equal in court, and it's just a matter of the proper relationships among them. You give people the vote, they're not chattels any more. Let's face it Ben, your grandaddy fucked us back in 1865.
It's a fact, Ben, you can't find these answers in Corinthians, unless you're fucking HIGHER than a kite, which may very well be.
But when we breed them in captivity, they emerge again, then we release them into the wild and nature culls them out yet again, LOL! (It doent matter what species it is, only a persentage survive when the cage is opened and the feeding trough isn't filled for them anymore...
Bush, seems to have "inherited" his lifestyle... Who knows how he would have faired on his own...
the 7/11 clerk is doing just fine... unless they are dipping into the earned-income-tax-credit, which is just another form of democrat-welfare!
The fag-hairdresser is doing just fine... unless he's applying for gov-funded healthcare for himself and his domestic partner so we have to pay the bill when their asses need stitches or they get AIDS, then they'd become leaches!
The corner orange-seller is doing just fine as long as he don't expect a cut of the "disaster insurance" when the orange crops get an early frost! Then he'd be just another suckeling at the nipple of big mother-gov!
the people who PAY FOR insurance, then draw it when they need it are fine, that's why it's called "insurance", but if they haven't paid into the system, or draw more then their entitled benefits just because some Welstone-liberal feels like extending them to him, then they are on welfare and should get off their lazy asses and find something to do... perhaps take a huge pay cut or work multiple shit-jobs...
The girl down the street didn't "get knocked up" by anyone unless she was raped (in which case mercy should be extended in whatever form best suits her need) and my brother-in-law should bear 1/2 the responsibility and pay for his child. If the gov. becomes involved in supporting her with hand-outs, pays for her shelter, food, gas, clothes, furnature, electricity, gas, health insurance, and all the needs of her child, plus increases her check every time she squeezes out another future-felon... That would make her the BIGGEST part of the problem, and her womb is the petree-dish that this social desease is cultured in!!!
Again your history is flawed! the trouble came when we started allowing NON-LAND-OWNERS to vote in Federal elections!! The founding fathers had it right, then Democrats fucked it all up! As usual!!!
That's illuminating.
How much land? Does a time-share count? A square inch in Alaska from a cereal box?
although you're probably closer to an ignorant Bible-thumper. Not exactly Fred Phelps, but only because you're too lazy. Maybe his shiftless 3rd cousin.
Their history as a Church is full of double-standards, hypocrites, and pharisee-like leadership... not to mention all the occultic ties to Free-masons and Shriners.... I've never met a Baptist I liked, thier so damn judgmental!
Nah, not me. I'm perturbed only by the fact that Murdoch's highest profile US media properties [FOX Network, NY Post, Weekly Standard] continue to make money hand over fist by pummeling this creature at every conceivable turn. And een when Murdoch is "forced" to "back off" the toxic Orentheal James Simpson, he still comes out ahead somehow, even if not mometarily.
See, for Rupe, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And we're playing right into his hands.
he can still say what he wants and actully print out copies and hand them out. This is a private company making a business decision that they are not going to pay for this material. A totally different matter than citizenship
It was with the people who agitated to stop the broadcast. There were many who put their names on website petitions. They are the ones I accuse of censorship.
Murdoch was making a business decision based upon that.
I underscored Murdoch's action as an example of showing that liberal bias in the press was an illusion, the reporters pretty much know what they can and can't write, and are under the thumbs of the corporations, finally.
they don't have to buy the book. Why are they worried about somebody else's taste or interest? As I pointed out, a book like this is about the only chance that the families would ever get paid, and it does have the possibility of bringing out facts that would create a moral if not legal end to the matter.
they were only expressing their freedom of speech as well. You can't silence their activities without violating the very freedom you are concerned about.
Seems to me O.J. can still say what he wants and the folks protesting what he had to say did the same. I see no issues here...