waitforufo

You mean someone is actually suggesting that the government let people keep their own money earned through effort and ability?  How is that ever going to work?  Everyone understands that only the government knows how to properly spend money.  Take the US for example.  The US government is so good at spending money their nation is now 20 Trillion dollars in debt.  Those crazy tax cutters.  It is as if they believe that an invisible hand guided by the will of the people spontaneously creates the economy.  What a crazy fantasy.  With more taxes everything everyone needed would be provided by government without effort.  It would likely be delivered to our doorsteps by solar powered flying robots.  We would have world peace and equality without effort.  No one would have to do anything and it would all be paid for by taxes.  It's an idea better than perpetual motion.  Those people with jobs and bank accounts are simply spoiling it for us all.    

Perhaps our instincts are so innate to our being that we don't even recognize when we or other humans exhibit them.  Our minds are busy doing important things so they simply filter out the obvious expected things that people do.  Obvious to us by instinct.  For example, my dog always walks around in a circle before he lies down to rest.  It's a nesting instinct done without thought.  I'm sure it has a purpose in his native environment, but is serves no purpose on my living room carpet.  It's obvious to me but not to my dog.

Perhaps we are not the keen observers we believe ourselves to be, particularly when we observe ourselves.  

Now if we do have a nature, and that nature for men and women is different but complementary, will we benefit in denying our natures?  I'm not sure.  In fact I doubt it.  

Well I did say it was a tough nut to crack. 

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Of course the ability of women to bear children and feed them with milk is a strong indicator that in principle they have at least some qualitative advantages in terms of child-rearing. But then, modern amenities. including baby formula and modern lifestyles may modulate it to a large degree. My point being that our ability to learn and the fact that behaviour is strongly moulded by the environment makes it very difficult to identify what seems to be assumed to be a "natural" state (based on our evolutionary history). Moreover, it may be quite pointless to do so, as our way of living has diverged massively to what most of our evolutionary history used to be.

You say our way of living has diverged massively to what most of our evolutionary history used to be.  I think it is important to consider how log ago did it diverged and for who.  I'm not an anthropologist, but I'm sure there are lots of people living today where that statement is not true.  Maybe a billion people.  I wonder how true that statement was for my great grandfather who was born on an Indian Reservation in Oklahoma in 1867.  Was it true for sod busters on the American plains.  Even for those of us where your statement is true, that massive divergence is very new, maybe just the last few hundred years.  I don't think that time could even be considered part of our evolutionary history.  

I think most of us like to believe we are blank slates when we are born, but I doubt that is true.  For what other species is it true?   

While there are stories where race plays an important part, Jim in Huckleberry Fin for example, there are far more stories where race isn't important.  In such stories, casting people without regard to race, I believe, gives us a glimpse of how our culture and society should operate.  I find stories cast in such a way to be quite refreshing.  I find this to be particularly true when the director does not add racial tension which is not found in the original story.  If there was no racial tension in the original story, why should it be added to a modern rendition.  My world if full of people of different races.  Why shouldn't that also apply to my entertainment?

The gender issue around games I find to be a different issue.  The nature/nurture question is a tough nut to crack.  I think one has to look at evolutionary time scales to understand nature.  For example Zebras are herd animals.  Was there a time in their evolutionary path where they were not herd animals?  How has the evolution of Zebras ingrained the herd instinct into Zebras.  Similar questions can be asked about gender differences between men and women.  How long have there been role differences between the roles of men and women.  Has evolution ingrained these role differences into men and women?  For example, are women more cooperative and men more competitive.  Did these differences improve human survival?  Did abstracting problems into games somehow benefit men more than women in contributing to human survival?  If so, perhaps men are instinctually more interested in games.  Now I'm sure some will be offended by such a line of questioning, but perhaps it shows the importance of diversity.  Our survival depends on the skills we developed during our evolution.  Why wouldn't our success continue to depend on those diverse skills.      

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular.  A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California.  

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil war.  

Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed.

Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property.  Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys. 

Koti I think you are missing the point.  By using the term "white males" they are implying Republicans because blacks and feminist vote for Democrats.  Yet when it comes to racism in the US, as I have consistently pointed out, history points to Democrats.  When doing so on this blog, defenders of the Democratic party always claim that all that Democratic party racist history was transferred to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy of the 1968 election.  Does this pan out when looking at data from the 1968 election?  Well let's take a look.

Above George Wallace is listed as "American" Independent" but he was in fact the former Democratic Governor of Alabama.  So the racists didn't vote for Nixon, they voted again for a Democrat.  This was not 100 years ago, it was 50 years ago. Though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the election well.  

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Tribal tendencies and lack of connection to bigger communities and countless many other things are responsible for racism, waitforufo.

What do you have against the tribes.  The Federal government tells me I'm a tribal member.  They made my family register as tribal members during the Dawes Rolls.

Also, it wasn't 100 years ago. Every hear of George Wallace. 

Q: Who was the governor of Georgia when they dedicated Stone Mountain, the birth place of the Second KKK? 

A: Jimmy Carter

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Enlighten me as to why African Americans, including those who suffered during segregation, are overwhelmingly Democrat today. Should be easy for such a well read person as yourself.

Stockholm syndrome

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal.

The federal government considers me to be a native American.  I have the tribal papers to prove that by the way.  I consider myself to be a human being.  You would be surprised the benefits I could receive because of my status.  I accept none of these benefits.  

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@ waitforufo African American voters voted 89% for Clinton and have consistently voted Democrat , 80's to low 90's percent, since LBJ. Civil rights icons like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson are Democrats. How do you square that reality with your claim that the modern Democratic party are the party of racists and responsible for our countries history of racists?

I read history books.

So earlier I posted this image.

Can't get more racist than appointing a know KKK member who defended racial murderers and filibustered anti-lunching legislation to the Supreme Court.

So why am I carrying an image of this racist around in my pocket (dime)?  Shouldn't we tear down all memorials of him?  Shouldn't his name be struck from every government project and building?  He is also the guy that signed into law the aid to families with dependent children act.  An act the Daniel Patrick Moynihan said destroyed the black family.  Shouldn't we do a thorough job eliminating government memorials to racists?  Remember, I'm in favor of completely eliminating Confederate memorials.  

34 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The waitforufos of the world are broadly politically deranged and only want to perpetuate discord with gotchas or fallacious points for the sole purpose of oppression, never to pursue equality, concession, compromise or fairness. All they want is to uphold their entitlement to white privilege, at everyone else's expense.

So now we are on to white privilege.  Whites don't have any privilege that all people shouldn't have.  The fact non whites don't have the same privileges is called racial discrimination.  I'm for eliminating racial discrimination so that all races have the same privileges.  Those that speak about white privilege are arguing that privileges should be taken from whites so that no one has privileges.  I don't see that as a positive or progressive stance. 

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

I'm not saying you are a racist. I'm saying your posting history demonstrates a clear pattern of political bigotry. Everything is always the liberal's fault.

Never, ever taking personal responsibility, as your ilk so loudly decries.

Does the same hold true with regard to the Nazi party? Am I a political bigot because I detest the Nazi party?  How about Communist like Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Mao.  I detest them as well. Does that make me a political bigot. How about Pinochet? I detest him as well.

So if a bunch of progressives decided to use the following symbol for their new political party would you join?

Edit: Swastika removed by site.

So why would anyone belong to a party that uses this symbol?

Or this one?

Edit: Democratic Donkey removed by site (interesting correlation)

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

This was aired last week. Interesting perspective that waitforufo seems to be reinforcing. The newest party in american politics is the Troll party.

 

 

Not true.  I'm simply pointing out who is responsible for racism in America today and how that legacy is impacting us today.  

Here's another example.  I'll just leave the google link because the articles are so numerous.

https://www.google.com/search?q=woodrow+wilson%2C+racism&oq=woodrow+wilson%2C+racism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4773.7443.0.8019.8.8.0.0.0.0.89.560.8.8.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.312...0j0i67k1j0i20k1j0i20i46k1j46i20k1.a1txqEQ96Wc 

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Monkey see monkey do?

Liberals tied you down and poured racism down your throat?

Self indoctrination while blaming everyone else.

Face it, you're not here to make salient points and explore solutions, but to be divisive and hyper-partisan. You put yourself in the minority. No one else.

Who says I'm a racist?  Show me a racist post I have ever made.  I'm all in favor of tearing down every Confederate memorial in the country including those in national monuments like Gettysburg and Antietam.  I would remove Confederate graves from Arlington National Cemetery.  As a hiring manager I have hired people of all races, creeds, and genders.   

Part of the solution to any problem is acknowledging how we got into the problem.  

Here is an example of the history I'm talking about

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Don't be ridiculous. The racists weren't constrained by the Democratic party. Racists existed both before and after the inception of the Democratic party, and they exist everywhere. Laying racism in America on an organization rather than on people is pathetic.

The Democratic party maintained political dominance in this country decades if not a century by catering to racists.  The KKK was founded by Democrats.  Major trade unions, all Democratic party supporters, were all racist.  There would have been no Charlottesville racist riot without the Democratic party.  Democrats need to take some responsibility.     

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yeah, because the Southern strategy in the 60s and 70s changed nothing. Democrats have never ever shifted their stance on any of these issues... ever. Nope... not once. Pure monolithic unchanging stance in favor of racism... Gosh... so glad you're here to share these valuable insights. 

Once more you do little more than try to further the divisions between us when I suspect there's a lot here about which we agree. FFS...

The Southern strategy is nothing but a minor footnote in the history of racism in America.  The history of racism in America was written chapter and verse by the Democratic party.  Nixon simply hoisted Hubert Humphrey on a petard carefully crafted by the Democratic party over 150 years. Perhaps one day there will be a prominent Democrat who honestly accepts their party's responsibility for promoting racism, but I doubt it.  A simple statement admitting that we wouldn't be here today with regard to racism without the Democratic party.   

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can stuff this where the sun doesn't shine. The Democratic party of 100 years ago bears little resemblance to what the party stands for today. This is nothing more than invoking the fallacy of equivocation, which is a dishonest discussion tactic.

The party doing this stuff today, or giving it cover, is the GOP.

I don't let the Nazi party off the hook for there atrocities, why should I let the Democratic party off the hook for theirs?   

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And I'd have to check to be certain, but I'm pretty sure none of them are still in office, so I'm unclear why the fact they were Democrats was brought up in the first place.

Because it is important to note who firmly ingrained racism into the American culture and law.  

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Earlier, swansont shared the link below in response to one of my posts. It seems to tackle this question head on. It was about intimidation and symbolism, and the timing is important, too statue erections (tee hee) spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/15/16153220/trump-confederate-statues

There is a whole segment of our population that seems to paradoxically feel it's better to push others down than it is to rise themselves up. Trump in various ways seems to hold this worldview, too, by treating every interaction as if it's zero sum / broken down into pure winners and pure losers. Oobla dee, I guess.

"spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted" by Democrats.

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So Germany and Japan were not capable of doing significant damage? If Kim has nukes, and he surely does, and he can do more than hit the ground in the general area he wants to hit doing so would bring about a massive retaliation that would obliterate North Korea. US Missiles are almost accurate enough to kill an individual, if we knew his location, without even an explosive warhead. In other words a warhead through your living room window is not too far from true. This makes US nukes far more dangerous and it's why we don't use 20 megaton warheads. Nuclear weapons have a mystique around them that is almost supernatural when in reality they are simply high explosives. admittedly very high explosives but one nuclear weapon is not going to destroy the world and unless you can deliver multiple warheads with a reasonable amount of accuracy you are not even going to destroy a major city. Little Kim does not have bombs powerful enough or accurate enough to do much more than destroy himself. Kinda like shooting a bald faced hornets nest with a BB gun. 

 

Yes one of Little Kim's little nukes could kill a lot of people but he would be killing himself and far more of his own people than he could ever hope to do to the US. In fact there is a pretty good chance we could shoot down any missiles NK could fire at us but a zero chance he could shoot down even one of the dozens of warheads we could shoot at him with one sub. Not to mention our warheads are about 100 times as powerful as his. It really is like going grizzly bear hunting with a 22 pistol, yeah you could really piss a grizzly off but you would still become bear shit... 

 

You're right. Those nukes we dropped on Japan in WWII were just pin pricks. It's surprising the Japanese surrendered.  Seeing as you are likely out of North Korea's range in South Eastern North Carolina you will be able to tell people in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc, that they are big sissies for complaining about getting hit by such a tiny nuke.  What is that cheeto man in the white house even worried about?  Right?

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What is true today that wasn't true a year ago, 10yrs ago, 20yrs ago, etc? You say China is risking war but in my last post I outlined the challenge North Korea has posed to the U.S. for decades now. It seems that then only thing which has changed is the diplomatic experience and patience in White House. I don't think it is correct/fair to expect China to shift decades worth of policies over night because the new U.S. President only knows how to threaten. The position this White House finds itself in is not unique or new. 

Perhaps you are not reading the news.  The new little Kim has new toys.  ICBMs topped with nukes capable of hitting much of the US.  You think this is insignificant?  All the previous presidents worked but failed to prevent this day from coming.  The North Korean regime exists at the pleasure of China.  It's actions are China's actions.  It's time for China to step up and remove Kim and his ICBMs and nuke weapons.   

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not sure.

I highly doubt there will be a war between the U.S.A and China. They're too closely related to start a war. If there is a war, it'll be devastating to both of them. Even if the U.S.A managed to conquer all of China(or Vice versa, China conquers the U.S.A) it would be so devastating and destructive, that it would be beneficent to neither of them. Plus, I believe both of them would launch every nuke they had before they could be destroyed. Soon as they realized they were on a downward slope with no hope of winning, they'd be like an animal caught in a corner. They will do everything they possibly can to preserve themselves. Which would probably result in the nuclear annihilation. China is closely tied to North Korea, sure. But are they willing to risk everything for a country that would be wiped out with little impact on their economy and life style? I doubt it. 

My point point exactly.  Particularly your last two sentences.  China needs to be told explicitly that they can't stay out of a nuclear war started by their very close ally North Korea.  If Tokyo or Seattle disappear, so will Beijing and Shanghai.  It's unavoidable.  We shouldn't pretend that it is not.  Kennedy publicly made this point clear to the USSR.  Trump should do the same to China.  Pretending this is not so is foolish.

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

China knows that the U.S.A sure isn't gonna risk a war between China. So threats against China won't work.

China is risking this war right now by keeping the Kim's in power.  It's time for China to choose.  

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It seems that China establishes itself as a major player in the conflict and is sending a message to Pyongyang and Washington.

North Korea is simply a puppet state of China.  If China is trying to send a message to Washington, Trump should simply give them a JFK response.

Quote

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba North Korea against any nation in the Western Hemisphere allied with the United States as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union China.  - President John F. Kennedy

.Perhaps that response would get China to put its poodle North Korea on a short leash.  

 

Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas.

Well I did try to reply to all of the above posts directed at me today, but I just didn't have time. I'm off for my winter vacation to Hawaii tomorrow, returning on March 3. The only reason I am posting today is that so many of you seem to miss me when I'm not posting. That is particularly true of DrmDoc as can be seen from the above. I hope you, DrmDoc, won't miss me too much and can hold out until I return.

 

By that logic, only the third rate burglars of the Watergate Hotel should be imprisoned and Nixon should have never been impeached or resigned?

 

I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know a call from Flynn to a high level Russian ambassador was not to talk about the weather and exchange recipes. You're skirting a serious national security issue to defend a Republican by claiming no authorization exists, when you clearly have no idea, one way or the other. This is why there are investigations, hearings and legal procedures. Dismissal has no bearing on anything other than partisan politics. Period.

You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. Waste you time with investigations, hearings, and legal procedures. You haven't slowed Trump down yet. I don't think you are going to, particularly when you have nothing.

 

And intercepted emails?

Like the email, these intercepted phone calls might just impact future elections. Who knows, maybe even the mid term elections. See you then.

If it happens in the context of government business, I would call it internal oversight rather than loss of 'personal' privacy. It's quite normal business practice to monitor employee behaviour when they are working. The intelligence and law enforcement agencies are the direct monitoring equivalent within the sphere of national government.

Here in the US, I believe as a result of the patriot act, the government can intercept international phone calls but there are law prohibiting the release of the US citizens name, or their part of the conversation. Violating such laws are felonies.

 

In the entire political history of American presidential campaigning, when was it ever necessary, appropriate or electorally favored to have contact or rumors of contact with Russian intelligence?

Well lets go back to your article.

 

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the American officials in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

 

Mr. Manafort added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

So all you have is bad optics. Trump has been in office for less than a month. Plenty of time to recover from bad optics.

 

Apparently the law of the land means nothing to you... (except the 2nd Amendment, of course)

 

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

 

What part of "intercepted phone conversations" means nothing to you? It doesn't even matter what was said, the mere fact it happened is a crime in itself.

If a democrat did that, I'm sure you'd have your own thread with long winded screeds of your interpretation of evil liberalism and totalitarian regimes beating you down. Calling for prison, impeachment and banishment to Nod.

 

But a Republican did that, so no big deal, right?

So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.