zapatos

Wow. Where to begin...

If I had to guess that sounds the most plausible to me. Followed by escalation with neither one backing down. Both a couple of dumb asses in my opinion. Wilson for not being more professional and Brown for arguing with someone carrying a gun. Finally ending in a tragedy that never had to happen.

If you don't know then why did you bring it up? If you are using it to support your argument then the onus is on you to explain it. Asking me to support your argument for you is ridiculous. As it is you appear to just have thrown a red herring out there in the hopes that a generic 'Republicans are Bad' post would somehow prove blacks in Ferguson are somehow unable to fully exercise their right to vote. Adding to that the insulting nature of this latest post is really too much. I don't believe I've earned it.

Okay, then back to my original questions: Are these undefined efforts in Missouri to restrict voter fraud the reason Ferguson has white leadership? Are they justification for people not taking personal responsibility? Did they cause confusion on the part of black voters so that they now do not know how to cast a ballot? How many legitimate voters will be disenfranchised if Missouri passes their proposed laws.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Does what you said have anything to do with the current line of discussion we are following or was it more of a random post on voting rights?

Why did you bring this up? Are these undefined efforts in Missouri to restrict voter fraud the reason Ferguson has white leadership? Are they justification for people not taking personal responsibility? Did they cause confusion on the part of black voters so that they now do not know how to cast a ballot? How many legitimate voters will be disenfranchised if Missouri passes their proposed laws. I get the same feeling of biased debate from the left as I get from the right. The only difference is that here no one calls me names.

I don't understand how you think starting a multinational corporation is in any way similar. That seems to be a ridiculous comparison. You could figure out how to vote by stopping random people in the street. Black people are neither children nor mentally defective.

We are not talking about them becoming someone they aren't. We are talking about someone walking down the street and casting a ballot. People vote every year. They hear about it on the news. A black President was elected. This is not some monumental shift in their paradigm. Your expectations of people are too low.

So you think the personal responsibility of voting is on a par with developing a company like Microsoft? I would have put it on a par with going grocery shopping. Just as hard and takes about the same amount of time. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my previous post. I do not need to understand how hard it was for blacks to vote in the '60s to expect that 50 years later they either manage to get to the polls or not complain who their representatives are. It's not hard to vote. In the 2012 Presidential election a higher percentage of blacks voted than did whites.

I did acknowledge it. I said "exactly the same". In my previous post I acknowledged government responsibility, but I also said that individuals have responsibilities. This is no different. It is you who is minimizing the 'personal responsibility' side of the equation. You just jumped into another example that focused on government responsibility. I agree with much of it. I agree, but probably not for the reason you think it is true. If someone has the right to vote, the ability to vote, and chooses not to vote, they are choosing to not be part of the team. I can't make them be team players. That is part of their responsibility. Never said they did. The problem I find with this type of issue is that it carries a lot of emotion with it. People have a hard time seeing things from the perspective of others. This site tends to lean liberal. If things are bad for blacks it is because we have mistreated them and it is our job to fix it for them. Other sites tend to lean conservative. If things are bad for blacks it is because they take no personal responsibility to get a job, vote, etc. From my perspective it a combination of the two. Government and individuals need to share the responsibility. It may have been institutionally hard for blacks to vote in the past due to their race, but when it comes to voting now their race rarely comes into play. If you can be organized enough to plan protests and have the time to march and rally, then you are capable of voting too. If you are not able to vote because the system is getting in your way, then I am onboard and it is 'our' responsibility to fix that. But if you are able to vote but choose not to, then while you may have my sympathy that we put you in a lower socio-economic tier, I don't have much sympathy for the fact that your elected officials are still predominately white in your predominately black community. On liberal sites the conservatives think I am on their side. On the conservative sites the liberals think I am on their side. But I think I am on the side of the centrists.

Exactly the same. All the government regulation in the world means nothing if you don't take on the personal responsibility that comes with driving a car. Don't drive 100 mph then get mad at me when you get hurt in an accident. I refuse to accept responsibility for you if you won't accept responsibility for yourself.

Fundamental difference of opinion I guess. I don't think it is the government's responsibility to enforce personal behavior. I expect the government to make it fair. If someone has the right to vote, the ability to vote, and chooses not to vote, that is their problem, not the government's. Don't expect the government to make sure you are fairly represented if you couldn't be bothered to go to the polls yourself.

I think arguing for one but not both is cynical and futile. Everyone should accept responsibility for themselves, and should help to ensure the institution is fair to all.

How would a planet keep on spinning as it flew apart? My Honda would fly off the earth tangentially to the rotation, quickly followed by everything else. All the pieces would be moving in a straight line. Unless you mean it would spin for the seconds (or whatever) until the roof over my head flew away before I could fly away.

I would think that planets would stop spinning due to the fact that they would fly apart into many pieces due to gravity no longer holding them together. If a planet is not solid then wouldn't it quickly disintegrate in the absence of gravity?

Yes, I'm aware of that. Can you give some examples of that? I'm unsure in what sense you mean. As an example the community leadership in Ferguson is voted in by Ferguson residents. Who are the 'outside' people you are talking about? I'm implying that the people in many predominately black communities could have black leadership and black police officers if they voted in black leaders who would ensure the community has black police officers. Are you implying that there are some sort of rules or regulations that are keeping blacks from going to the polls?

I wonder why that is. In a place like Ferguson, a majority black police force is there for the taking if the majority of the citizens are willing to vote that way. Why doesn't that happen more often?

Seriously? Would you be so kind as to name some of the 'vast majority of fossils' that did survive? If you could start with the dinosaurs that survived that would be great.

There is a tremendous amount of content on the internet free of charge. The problem is it is not easily discoverable, nor is it in a format that is pleasant to use. As much as many people hate publishers, it is that ease of access and the polished finished product that you have to pay for. Thus the paywalls.

No one is trying to deny Cuba the right to self governance. No one is under any obligation to trade with another country if they feel that country has sufficient negative attributes. Nor should they be. Would you feel obligated to trade power tools with your wife-beating next door neighbor just because you trade power tools with everyone else in the neighborhood? Are we not justified in withholding 'fair global competition' to the likes of North Korea? Withholding the benefits that come with good relations with your neighbors as a method to reign in poor behavior is a time-honored and effective course of action. It is certainly better than armed conflict. I would venture to say that there is not a country in the world who does not impede 'fair global competition' for at least one other country. And we generally deny them to some extent the benefits of 'fair global competition' also.

Lots of shapes if you consider the following balls: Football, soccer ball, golf ball, rugby ball, basketball, etc.

Well, it would be nice for the Cubans.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I've been reading but I think the restrictions he is lifting on travel, commerce, and financial activities are currently part of the embargo. Here is an excerpt of a breakdown from the NY Times: (It looks a lot cleaner if you follow the link) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/17/world/americas/cuba-sanctions.html

I think Obama's changes will stand. I believe the primary reason we have had an embargo this long is because of political inertia. A lot of people want sanctions removed (businesses, tourists, families) and only a few want them to remain (recent Cuban immigrants). I suspect dropping sanctions will make life better for a large number of Cubans.

It is also important to remember that communication is a two way street. While it is important for the speaker to attempt to not offend, it is also important for the listener to attempt to not take offense. In written communication you lose intonation, speed of delivery, body language, etc. Dialogue that takes place through written word only is easily misinterpreted. The listener would do well to not take offense at a perceived insult, and wait instead until the speaker unambiguously calls you a sniveling little rat-faced troll.