Politics

[wizards8507]

PSSSSST...PSSSSSSSTTT


THEY ALREADY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON GUN SALES!

And and and... get this... there's no such thing as an "assault weapon." It has no definition. It's just a made up term to score political points.

It's like people think Joe Crazy can walk into a Bass Pro Shops and buy a machine gun thirty days after he escapes from the federal penitentiary.

 

[irishpat183]

This is the first time I've ever posted something sent to me via PM, but I think it's justified in the interest of transparent moderation.



95's response to his very lenient 1 point infraction for blatant racism is bolded above.

I hope you've enjoyed your time here on IE, 95. Best of luck to you in the future.

WOW....Dude went postal.


Irishpat...you're a racist

 

[connor_in]

They are in a minority in their own party. Want proof? Tell Boener to put a clean CR on the floor and see what happens.

We can have a million out of work because this stupid shutdown demands it Incidently, that number keeps growing because contractors are beginning to send people home too?

I agree that if the debt ceiling is not passed, this country will go into a tailspin.

There are groups in each party that drive the rest. See the Senate and why Harry won't put so many of the House bills before it. Personally, I don't want a clean CR passed so why should I call for it. The D's say that they will negotiate after they get what they want. First off, that's basically how we got here today, and secondly what motivation would they have to do so. Its not like they actually want to pass a budget.

Why are you worried about the people unemployed by the current shutdown and don't care about the rest of the unemployed people out there in this great recovery we are experiencing?

Why do you disagree with Senator Obama?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

And they're all living in distinct communities (state, city, neighborhood, etc.) that have different needs and policy preferences. The one-size-fits-all approach of trying govern such a huge and diverse nation from a single centralized authority was recognized as a serious danger by the Anti-Federalists, but that's where we've ended up anyway.

I should have been more clear. Did the framers intend their nation to be populated by 300 million people from all over the world?

From reading that article it would seem America screwed the pooch a loooong time ago.

 

[GowerND11]

I should have been more clear. Did the framers intend their nation to be populated by 300 million people from all over the world?

From reading that article it would seem America screwed the pooch a loooong time ago.

I don't think anyone back then could have ever predicted the growth of the human population that occurred for the 200 years after. I would argue though that, based on the already massive geography of the country with only 13 states, the framers had the right idea to give power to state governments knowing even then that each state had their own economies, people, cultures, resources, etc.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I should have been more clear. Did the framers intend their nation to be populated by 300 million people from all over the world?

They probably didn't foresee our population growing to 300m+ or being as racially diverse as it today. Conversely, with the advent of mass media, we're arguably less culturally and linguistically diverse than we were a couple hundred years ago.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, because the local interests at the time of the founding were already diverse enough to cause the Anti-Federalists major heartburn (north v. south, etc.) To the extent that our political dysfunction is caused by an inability to agree on what the common good is, the increase in diversity since the founding validates the Anti-Federalist view that such a nation cannot be governed by a single central authority.

From reading that article it would seem America screwed the pooch a loooong time ago.

Specifically, we've been "screwed" since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. See the 8th paragraph in the AmCon article linked above. The Constitution's opponents (including most Anti-Federalists) correctly predicted the steady centralization of power that would occur once it was passed.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

They probably didn't foresee our population growing to 300m+ or being as racially diverse as it today. Conversely, with the advent of mass media, we're arguably less culturally and linguistically diverse than we were a couple hundred years ago.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, because the local interests at the time of the founding were already diverse enough to cause the Anti-Federalists major heartburn (north v. south, etc.) To the extent that our political dysfunction is caused by an inability to agree on what the common good is, the increase in diversity since the founding validates the Anti-Federalist view that such a nation cannot be governed by a single central authority.



Specifically, we've been "screwed" since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. See the 8th paragraph in the AmCon article linked above. The Constitution's opponents (including most Anti-Federalists) correctly predicted the steady centralization of power that would occur once it was passed.

Wouldn't it be easier to break up the nation?

Is there a point when a nation gets too big?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wouldn't it be easier to break up the nation?

Since the civil war, it's pretty clear that secession isn't a viable option for any of the states.

Is there a point when a nation gets too big?

The nation is too big for the Feds to effectively govern, but they were never meant to wield as much power as they currently have. If the Feds devolved power back to states and municipalities, and focused only on those tasks that no individual state could adequately provide for itself, we'd be fine.

Unfortunately, no one in D.C. is going to voluntarily give up power, so it would take another Constitutional Convention to make this a reality. And the odds of that happening are extremely low. So things will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

[QUOTE=Whiskeyjack;1132623]Since the civil war, it's pretty clear that secession isn't a viable option for any of the states.

An example of Federal overreach?


The nation is too big for the Feds to effectively govern, but they were never meant to wield as much power as they currently have. If the Feds devolved power back to states and municipalities, and focused only on those tasks that no individual state could adequately provide for itself, we'd be fine.

Unfortunately, no one in D.C. is going to voluntarily give up power, so it would take another Constitutional Convention to make this a reality. And the odds of that happening are extremely low. So things will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]

I'm just lost beginning to read more into these kinds of things so I can get lost, so bear with me. Did the Feds have too much power when they forced the south to stay in the union?

 

[connor_in]

 

[chicago51]

PSSSSST...PSSSSSSSTTT


THEY ALREADY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON GUN SALES!

Was referring to online sales and at gun shows.

That is besides the point as you totally missed the point of that post.

It is not the issue itself. It is the whole idea holding the government for ransom until the other side gives into all your demands. The issue I used could have been anything. How about ending oil company subsidies? I mean Republicans don't to defund the Obamacare subsidies so let's defund oil subsidies.

The Democrats aren't asking for anything. All we are talking about is doing the bare minimum to prevent an economic crash by defaulting on the debt.

 

[chicago51]

There are groups in each party that drive the rest. See the Senate and why Harry won't put so many of the House bills before it. Personally, I don't want a clean CR passed so why should I call for it. The D's say that they will negotiate after they get what they want. First off, that's basically how we got here today, and secondly what motivation would they have to do so. Its not like they actually want to pass a budget.

Why are you worried about the people unemployed by the current shutdown and don't care about the rest of the unemployed people out there in this great recovery we are experiencing?

Why do you disagree with Senator Obama?

Your point about the leaders is true. They try to shield vulnerable members from taking tough votes.

Your point on Democrats only negotiating after they get what they want is false. Democrats hate the clean CR. The Democrats want the sequester cuts repealed/replaced. Saying the Democrats are getting "everything they want" with a clean CR is ludicrous.

 

[wizards8507]

Was referring to online sales and at gun shows.

That is besides the point as you totally missed the point of that post.

It is not the issue itself. It is the whole idea holding the government for ransom until the other side gives into all your demands. The issue I used could have been anything. How about ending oil company subsidies? I mean Republicans don't to defund the Obamacare subsidies so let's defund oil subsidies.

The Democrats aren't asking for anything. All we are talking about is doing the bare minimum to prevent an economic crash by defaulting on the debt.

ABSOLUTELY defund oil subsidies. I'm pretty sure the young guys (Cruz, Paul, Rubio, etc.) would agree with that. Boehner and his cronies don't represent the "little r" republican base.

EDIT: Online gun sales must be executed by licensed dealers.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rizzophil]

Since the civil war, it's pretty clear that secession isn't a viable option for any of the states.



The nation is too big for the Feds to effectively govern, but they were never meant to wield as much power as they currently have. If the Feds devolved power back to states and municipalities, and focused only on those tasks that no individual state could adequately provide for itself, we'd be fine.

Unfortunately, no one in D.C. is going to voluntarily give up power, so it would take another Constitutional Convention to make this a reality. And the odds of that happening are extremely low. So things will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future.

States will get their appropriate amount of power back when the dollar goes into hyper inflation. Probably in the next 3-4 years

 

[autry_denson]

This is the first time I've ever posted something sent to me via PM, but I think it's justified in the interest of transparent moderation.



95's response to his very lenient 1 point infraction for blatant racism is bolded above.

I hope you've enjoyed your time here on IE, 95. Best of luck to you in the future.

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

Let me float a couple of possibilities about what the now-banned 95 alum might have been thinking when he wrote that post. I have no idea who he is or what he had in mind, so these are all purely speculative:

Possibility #1: Maybe he just doesn’t like white people and it finally came out.

Possibility #2: Maybe he would have explained why he wrote that post, but didn’t get the chance b/c he was banned. There was a thread a month or so back in which someone posted a video of 3 black kids beating up a white kid, with no context, and titled it ‘racist beatdown…’ The poster then came out and said that his intention was to teach us all a lesson about the perils of making inferences about racism without explicit knowledge about the intentions of the individuals involved (or something to this effect). And he decided to teach this lesson by intentionally race-baiting. The logic of this idea was borderline comical—but the point is he had the chance to explain himself, even if the explanation was bizarre. If he had been banned without the chance to explain, everyone would have just assumed that the thread was blatantly racist. Is there any chance that 95alum was making a point about what it feels like to be treated with hostility on a regular basis, and he chose to do so by spitting out racial epithets for white people to provide a glimpse?

Possibility #3: Maybe there is so much racism and racial hatred on this site, and in this thread, that this guy had enough. Irishpat started a thread that was titled “If Obama had a son…” and that linked to a story about a murder committed by 3 black kids. If we are banning members for explicit racism, he should not be on this site. Most of it is more subtle. It is utterly remarkable to me how much subtle racial hatred shows up on this site, and particularly on this thread, on a regular basis. The conversations drift into a realm where it takes on the tone of a bunch of rednecks sitting in a booth at a bar with the knowledge that there’s nobody who’s going to call them on their hatred b/c they’re with ‘their own’. I am white, and I have no idea how a black guy would feel reading this stuff. But my guess is that the undertones of racial hatred would be difficult to read, over and over. The complete denial of the validity of experiences of other groups who are not well-represented on the site would get tiresome. After a while, it might get to you. It might cause you to suspect that the others on the site are not just trying to provoke, but hold deeply racist beliefs at their core. It might cause one to lash out in anger.

We won’t know because he’s banned. I hope it’s not permanent. I find it disturbing how there is so much subtle racism on this site, which I never expected to find when I started following the site closely in order to keep up with recruiting. I take some comfort in thinking that most of it is coming from people who didn’t go to ND, but I’m not even sure if that’s true. But the real irony is that with all of the racist posts and threads I’ve seen on here, the guy who makes a racist comment about white people is the one who gets banned.

 

[wizards8507]

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

Let me float a couple of possibilities about what the now-banned 95 alum might have been thinking when he wrote that post. I have no idea who he is or what he had in mind, so these are all purely speculative:

Possibility #1: Maybe he just doesn’t like white people and it finally came out.

Possibility #2: Maybe he would have explained why he wrote that post, but didn’t get the chance b/c he was banned. There was a thread a month or so back in which someone posted a video of 3 black kids beating up a white kid, with no context, and titled it ‘racist beatdown…’ The poster then came out and said that his intention was to teach us all a lesson about the perils of making inferences about racism without explicit knowledge about the intentions of the individuals involved (or something to this effect). And he decided to teach this lesson by intentionally race-baiting. The logic of this idea was borderline comical—but the point is he had the chance to explain himself, even if the explanation was bizarre. If he had been banned without the chance to explain, everyone would have just assumed that the thread was blatantly racist. Is there any chance that 95alum was making a point about what it feels like to be treated with hostility on a regular basis, and he chose to do so by spitting out racial epithets for white people to provide a glimpse?

Possibility #3: Maybe there is so much racism and racial hatred on this site, and in this thread, that this guy had enough. Irishpat started a thread that was titled “If Obama had a son…” and that linked to a story about a murder committed by 3 black kids. If we are banning members for explicit racism, he should not be on this site. Most of it is more subtle. It is utterly remarkable to me how much subtle racial hatred shows up on this site, and particularly on this thread, on a regular basis. The conversations drift into a realm where it takes on the tone of a bunch of rednecks sitting in a booth at a bar with the knowledge that there’s nobody who’s going to call them on their hatred b/c they’re with ‘their own’. I am white, and I have no idea how a black guy would feel reading this stuff. But my guess is that the undertones of racial hatred would be difficult to read, over and over. The complete denial of the validity of experiences of other groups who are not well-represented on the site would get tiresome. After a while, it might get to you. It might cause you to suspect that the others on the site are not just trying to provoke, but hold deeply racist beliefs at their core. It might cause one to lash out in anger.

We won’t know because he’s banned. I hope it’s not permanent. I find it disturbing how there is so much subtle racism on this site, which I never expected to find when I started following the site closely in order to keep up with recruiting. I take some comfort in thinking that most of it is coming from people who didn’t go to ND, but I’m not even sure if that’s true. But the real irony is that with all of the racist posts and threads I’ve seen on here, the guy who makes a racist comment about white people is the one who gets banned.

You WAY misunderstood the "Obama's son" reference. During the George Zimmerman trial, President Obama made comments that "if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon." The President's tone carried connotations of "this must have been a race-based murder" long before any facts had been heard on the case. I wasn't around for the thread in question, but I believe the poster was illustrating that racism cuts both ways. Assuming George Zimmerman is racist before hearing any testimony on the matter is a racist assumption to make. Maybe he's a racist murderer. Maybe he's a regular murderer. Maybe he's an irresponsible gun owner. Maybe he got jumped and committed self defense. But no. His skin was lighter than Trayvon's so the ONLY possible conclusion is that he is a racist murderer.

I bet when you read "racist beatdown" in the other offending thread, you assumed it was white-on-black. The fact that it was the other way around seems to prove the posters theory about our predisposition to make assumptions. Pointing out that white people are not the only ones capable of racism is not in itself racist.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[autry_denson]

You WAY misunderstood the "Obama's son" reference. During the George Zimmerman trial, President Obama made comments that "if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon." The President's tone carried connotations of "this must have been a race-based murder" long before any facts had been heard on the case. I wasn't around for the thread in question, but I believe the poster was illustrating that racism cuts both ways. Assuming George Zimmerman is racist before hearing any testimony on the matter is a racist assumption to make. Maybe he's a racist murderer. Maybe he's a regular murderer. Maybe he's an irresponsible gun owner. Maybe he got jumped and committed self defense. But no. His skin was lighter than Trayvon's so the ONLY possible conclusion is that he is a racist murderer.

I bet when you read "racist beatdown" in the other offending thread, you assumed it was white-on-black. The fact that it was the other way around seems to prove the posters theory about our predisposition to make assumptions. Pointing out that white people are not the only ones capable of racism is not in itself racist.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

ha - yeah, I got it but thanks for the explanation.

exhibits a and b about how threads that are likely to be seen by many as designed to provoke racial hostility are seen by some as perfectly logical and persuasive.

 

[wizards8507]

ha - yeah, I got it but thanks for the explanation.

exhibits a and b about how threads that are likely to be seen by many as designed to provoke racial hostility are seen by some as perfectly logical and persuasive.

I'm not saying it's my taste or that it's persuasive. It might even be counter productive because it rubs folks like you the wrong way. But I understand the attempt to point out a double standard and don't think it warrants accusations of "subtle racism" or whatever term.

Edit: The banned guy was going off on "crackers" and other such terms. There was nothing subtle about it. I have full faith that if posters started slinging filth like "coon" or "wetback" they'd be promptly banned as well.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[yankeehater]

LOL....That picture is the hanger at the closed Marine Base in Tustin, CA. It is a landmark, but unfortunately part of the roof fell last week.

 

[pkt77242]

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

Let me float a couple of possibilities about what the now-banned 95 alum might have been thinking when he wrote that post. I have no idea who he is or what he had in mind, so these are all purely speculative:

Possibility #1: Maybe he just doesn’t like white people and it finally came out.

Possibility #2: Maybe he would have explained why he wrote that post, but didn’t get the chance b/c he was banned. There was a thread a month or so back in which someone posted a video of 3 black kids beating up a white kid, with no context, and titled it ‘racist beatdown…’ The poster then came out and said that his intention was to teach us all a lesson about the perils of making inferences about racism without explicit knowledge about the intentions of the individuals involved (or something to this effect). And he decided to teach this lesson by intentionally race-baiting. The logic of this idea was borderline comical—but the point is he had the chance to explain himself, even if the explanation was bizarre. If he had been banned without the chance to explain, everyone would have just assumed that the thread was blatantly racist. Is there any chance that 95alum was making a point about what it feels like to be treated with hostility on a regular basis, and he chose to do so by spitting out racial epithets for white people to provide a glimpse?

Possibility #3: Maybe there is so much racism and racial hatred on this site, and in this thread, that this guy had enough. Irishpat started a thread that was titled “If Obama had a son…” and that linked to a story about a murder committed by 3 black kids. If we are banning members for explicit racism, he should not be on this site. Most of it is more subtle. It is utterly remarkable to me how much subtle racial hatred shows up on this site, and particularly on this thread, on a regular basis. The conversations drift into a realm where it takes on the tone of a bunch of rednecks sitting in a booth at a bar with the knowledge that there’s nobody who’s going to call them on their hatred b/c they’re with ‘their own’. I am white, and I have no idea how a black guy would feel reading this stuff. But my guess is that the undertones of racial hatred would be difficult to read, over and over. The complete denial of the validity of experiences of other groups who are not well-represented on the site would get tiresome. After a while, it might get to you. It might cause you to suspect that the others on the site are not just trying to provoke, but hold deeply racist beliefs at their core. It might cause one to lash out in anger.

We won’t know because he’s banned. I hope it’s not permanent. I find it disturbing how there is so much subtle racism on this site, which I never expected to find when I started following the site closely in order to keep up with recruiting. I take some comfort in thinking that most of it is coming from people who didn’t go to ND, but I’m not even sure if that’s true. But the real irony is that with all of the racist posts and threads I’ve seen on here, the guy who makes a racist comment about white people is the one who gets banned.

He wasn't banned for what he said in the email from what I can understand. He was banned for what he posted in the thread. I think Whiskey was just posting the PM for full disclosure, not as the reason he was banned.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Wouldn't it be easier to break up the nation?

Is there a point when a nation gets too big?

I've brought up the idea of splitting the country up into red states and blue states. Left leaning nanny states to the left, self reliant Constitutionalists to the right. Ready, go. We'll see who needs who.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've brought up the idea of splitting the country up into red states and blue states. Left leaning nanny states to the left, self reliant Constitutionalists to the right. Ready, go. We'll see who needs who.

Insinuating that red states don't nanny the hell out of constituents, and that blue states don't follow the Constitution, is just silly.

I think the blue states would dominate in that regard too. The GDP has to be larger right? California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Washington. It adds up pretty quickly.

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe the problem isn't "people out of work due to the shutdown." Maybe the problem is that so many people rely on the government for work in the first place.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was a social welfare system. It is not as if the people who applied for government jobs are on the dole. They are putting in 40 hours a week (many work a lot more than that with no additional compensation providing the American taxpayer services) just like people who don't work for the government. Many could find work outside of the government making more money, but have chosen to serve their country instead. Is there dead wood in the government? Absolutely, but there are far, far more hardworking people who are dedicated to their jobs and to providing the respective services that are the responsibility of the government. They don't deserve to be jacked around because the GOP decides to throw a tantrem and shut down the government.

 

[autry_denson]

I've brought up the idea of splitting the country up into red states and blue states. Left leaning nanny states to the left, self reliant Constitutionalists to the right. Ready, go. We'll see who needs who.

the lack of knowledge and understanding of our country that is exhibited in this post is amazing.

 

[autry_denson]

He wasn't banned for what he said in the email from what I can understand. He was banned for what he posted in the thread. I think Whiskey was just posting the PM for full disclosure, not as the reason he was banned.

Whiskey said explicitly that he got a 1 point infraction for what he posted. He was then banned after he sent the pm that Whiskey decided to post to the rest of the board.

 

[potownhero]

Oh, I didn't realize that it was a social welfare system. It is not as if the people who applied for government jobs are on the dole. They are putting in 40 hours a week (many work a lot more than that with no additional compensation providing the American taxpayer services) just like people who don't work for the government. Many could find work outside of the government making more money, but have chosen to serve their country instead. Is there dead wood in the government? Absolutely, but there are far, far more hardworking people who are dedicated to their jobs and to providing the respective services that are the responsibility of the government. They don't deserve to be jacked around because the GOP decides to throw a tantrem and shut down the government.

I didn't think Pat was saying that no government employee works 40 hours a week or hard. What I inferred from his comment was that there's no device that removes the unproductive ones.

In the private economy, if you're not making you company money, you get canned or demoted...and you certainly don't get a raise. If you work for the government, there's no measuring stick with teeth. What is the firing rate for government employees?

Just to pick up on something else you said, about 'working 40 hours a week". Just because someone works 40 hours a week doesn't make them productive enough to keep. What was accomplished in those 40 hours? I have had this conversation with my "union worker" cousin who was a great helper but never liked to take the lead on a job. He seemed to get offended when I told him we needed to get more done; his comment was, to ask me if I meant we would work overtime...smh.

 

[Black Irish]

Interesting. A few questions for whiskey:

1) Is it standard for members to be banned for pm’s?
2) If so, should we pass on info about pm’s that we think are deserving of a ban to mods?
3) Or is it only pm’s to mods that can get you banned?
4) Given that his pm was published and then he was banned, should he have a chance to let us know what the context for the pm was? Or is he permanently banned, in which case his exit from the site comes after having his personal message published, in isolation, without a chance to respond or reveal what else was said or why he said what he did?

Let me float a couple of possibilities about what the now-banned 95 alum might have been thinking when he wrote that post. I have no idea who he is or what he had in mind, so these are all purely speculative:

Possibility #1: Maybe he just doesn’t like white people and it finally came out.

Possibility #2: Maybe he would have explained why he wrote that post, but didn’t get the chance b/c he was banned. There was a thread a month or so back in which someone posted a video of 3 black kids beating up a white kid, with no context, and titled it ‘racist beatdown…’ The poster then came out and said that his intention was to teach us all a lesson about the perils of making inferences about racism without explicit knowledge about the intentions of the individuals involved (or something to this effect). And he decided to teach this lesson by intentionally race-baiting. The logic of this idea was borderline comical—but the point is he had the chance to explain himself, even if the explanation was bizarre. If he had been banned without the chance to explain, everyone would have just assumed that the thread was blatantly racist. Is there any chance that 95alum was making a point about what it feels like to be treated with hostility on a regular basis, and he chose to do so by spitting out racial epithets for white people to provide a glimpse?

Possibility #3: Maybe there is so much racism and racial hatred on this site, and in this thread, that this guy had enough. Irishpat started a thread that was titled “If Obama had a son…” and that linked to a story about a murder committed by 3 black kids. If we are banning members for explicit racism, he should not be on this site. Most of it is more subtle. It is utterly remarkable to me how much subtle racial hatred shows up on this site, and particularly on this thread, on a regular basis. The conversations drift into a realm where it takes on the tone of a bunch of rednecks sitting in a booth at a bar with the knowledge that there’s nobody who’s going to call them on their hatred b/c they’re with ‘their own’. I am white, and I have no idea how a black guy would feel reading this stuff. But my guess is that the undertones of racial hatred would be difficult to read, over and over. The complete denial of the validity of experiences of other groups who are not well-represented on the site would get tiresome. After a while, it might get to you. It might cause you to suspect that the others on the site are not just trying to provoke, but hold deeply racist beliefs at their core. It might cause one to lash out in anger.

We won’t know because he’s banned. I hope it’s not permanent. I find it disturbing how there is so much subtle racism on this site, which I never expected to find when I started following the site closely in order to keep up with recruiting. I take some comfort in thinking that most of it is coming from people who didn’t go to ND, but I’m not even sure if that’s true. But the real irony is that with all of the racist posts and threads I’ve seen on here, the guy who makes a racist comment about white people is the one who gets banned.

I would like to see some of these purportedly racist posts you referenced. You said there are some in this thread, so it shouldn't be too hard to quote them to buttress your point. I think you should at least do that, rather then just throwing out broad accusations of racism against other members on this site. You are entertaining the possibility that 95, who I'm assuming is a grown man, was sent around the bend because of "undertones of racial hatred" that you insist are pervasive not only on this site, but in this thread in particular. That's insulting. I've been following this thread for awhile, and I will concede that some posts show a lack of compassion towards our fellow man and those who are different. And some people do make off-color jokes and don't play the PC game. But out-and-out "racial hatred?" "Bunch of rednecks?" Come off it. Quote some specific examples before you lay a guilt trip on the rest of us because 95 could not control himself and his prejudice.

 

[autry_denson]

I didn't think Pat was saying that no government employee works 40 hours a week or hard. What I inferred from his comment was that there's no device that removes the unproductive ones.

In the private economy, if you're not making you company money, you get canned or demoted...and you certainly don't get a raise. If you work for the government, there's no measuring stick with teeth. What is the firing rate for government employees?

Just to pick up on something else you said, about 'working 40 hours a week". Just because someone works 40 hours a week doesn't make them productive enough to keep. What was accomplished in those 40 hours? I have had this conversation with my "union worker" cousin who was a great helper but never liked to take the lead on a job. He seemed to get offended when I told him we needed to get more done; his comment was, to ask me if I meant we would work overtime...smh.

I don't disagree with this, to be honest. The government has to be made more efficient - I would not take a policy-making job in the federal gov't (if offered) at this point b/c I've seen what the most ambitious and visionary people in Washington have to deal with in working with the dead wood in Washington. It's not that government is bloated, it's that it is not efficient. I would have no objections to proposals to making it more efficient, but approaches that try to starve government without any proposals for making it work better miss the point. The current shutdown is increasingly dangerous - literally and figuratively - for our country. I can't get a EIN issue resolved for my company b/c no one is answering the phone; the entire NIH grant process, which remains the most important source of scientific advancement, has grinded to a halt; head start programs are literally shutting down; data from the census is not available to researchers; the flu program is barely functioning; and so forth.

 

[BobD]

I've brought up the idea of splitting the country up into red states and blue states. Left leaning nanny states to the left, self reliant Constitutionalists to the right. Ready, go. We'll see who needs who.

LMAO! Please tell me you're not serious.

 

[autry_denson]

I would like to see some of these purportedly racist posts you referenced. You said there are some in this thread, so it shouldn't be too hard to quote them to buttress your point. I think you should at least do that, rather then just throwing out broad accusations of racism against other members on this site. You are entertaining the possibility that 95, who I'm assuming is a grown man, was sent around the bend because of "undertones of racial hatred" that you insist are pervasive not only on this site, but in this thread in particular. That's insulting. I've been following this thread for awhile, and I will concede that some posts show a lack of compassion towards our fellow man and those who are different. And some people do make off-color jokes and don't play the PC game. But out-and-out "racial hatred?" "Bunch of rednecks?" Come off it. Quote some specific examples before you lay a guilt trip on the rest of us because 95 could not control himself and his prejudice.

It's not out and out racial hatred most of the time. It's more subtle. I don't have time to go back through this thread to find examples. But I gave two examples of threads - you can take a look at those to get a sense of what I mean.