Once again, you seem to forget that I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat and am neither defending not attacking either position. I listed, verbatim, the self expressed party lines of those 2 parties and you responded with an ad hominem attack that I must listen to Limbaugh. I am NOT nor have I EVER in this entire thread defended a specific policy of a specific administration on either side of the fence, but rather I was discussing the basic philosophy of the party. I ignored your ad hominem attack and requested you correct me and tell me that if I have got the basic tenets of Democratic Philosophy wrong, then please, praytell, you, who I assume are a Democrat from your stance, tell me WHAT IS IT YOU BELIEVE? But no, you still fail to respond to a direct question, and leave me to doubt that you even have a clue what Democratic philosophy is, and come off with simply more ad hominem rhetoric THAT ISN'T EVEN APPLICABLE because I already admitted, up front, which started the entire discussion, *I'M NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN*. I don't believe in what it is Republican's stand for and I refuse to defend their policies, but you're not even debating their policies, but rather attacking me personally because I'm not satisfying you by screaming that their all evil.
Call them all kooks if you want, but the fact of the matter is that your party can't win a fucking election to save their life in the middle of one of the least popular administrations in recent history. You've lost the congress, you've lost the senate, you've lost the presidency, you have almost no power anymore, your capaign money sources are abandoning you for greener pastures, and it is all because of what you are typifying right now. You don't even know what it is you believe anymore! You've spent so many years now whining and crying that Bush did this wrong, Bush did that wrong, Bush screwed us here and there and everywhere that you've forgotten that the American public refuses to elect whiners. ESPECIALLY whiners who can't explain their own ruling philosophy or present any kind of coherent alternative. It didn't work for the Republicans when they bitched and moaned about Clinton... They presented a moderate war hero (Dole) who should have been able to whoop the pants off of scandal ridden Clinton, but he didn't because his party was being a bunch of whiners. You guys did the same with Kerry and lost. The difference is, the Republicans LEARNED from their mistake and came back to kick your ass so bad you are a party in real danger of not existing 10 years from now. Kerry's biggest platform was "Hey at least I'm not that other guy." JEEZUS! You wonder why he lost? If it weren't for the fact that Bush's entire party knows he's a fucknut it wouldn't even have been close! sean hannity, ann coulter, david horowitz, rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly are all kooks, but they are kooks who actually stand for SOMETHING other than "vote for us, we have no policy" and that's why they win, because there is no competion anymore in the arena of "standing for something". oh wait, I guess you did sum up your parties entire plank up above when you admitted that the sole reason Democrats exist is to "pay the people who put them into office with generous subsidies and govt contracts." Geez, at least the Republicans are smart enough to still cover that plank up a little.
And you say the Libertarians are out of touch with reality...
I am not stating specifics, that President X (R) helped the economy more than President Y (D). I'm not a Republican and I don't want to end up in an argument where I'm defending the individual policies of an administration I don't support in the first place. My statement was that in general, economies have a tendancy to grow faster under Republican rule. This is by virtue of the philosophy of the individual parties and what they hold most dear.
Your closing statement is a strawman. ALL parties, except for a couple far fringe nutcase parties, have the exact same goals... A prosperous populace where the welfare of all members of society is unthreatened by poverty, ill health, crime or invasion. The difference between the parties is that they disagree with the best way to go about accomplishing that.
By their own stance, the Democratic philosophy freely and openly admits that the economic welfare of the lowest earning members of society is of utmost importance, even if that means that the overall economic good of the country must take a second seat to achieve that goal. What good is a strong economy if we leave some people behind in order to achieve it? As the generosity of society is not guaranteed, there must be a strong compulsory mechanism in place to ensure that all members of society recieve at least a minimal humane life.
The Republican philosophy is that if the economy is strong enough, then the welfare of the lowest earning capable members of society is already assured. The only welfare that must be attended to is that of the incapable members of society, eg. the elderly, the young and the disabled, however, the surpluses generated by a strong economy will provide for a majority of those via non compulsory mechanisms, charity, family, etc... so the compulsory burden on society need only be minimal. In order to guarantee this, we must strive for a strong economy over nearly anything else.
The entire basis of Republican economic philosophy hinges on the ideal that a strong economy is the primary goal. The Democratic philosophy is willing to sacrifice the economy to some extent to achieve what they see as a greater goal. The Republican philosophy has a tendancy therefore to achieve greater economic gains overall, naturally, because that is their goal. Neither philosophy is evil, or even neccissarily wrong. There ARE bad Republicans and bad Democrats, but in our vitriolic attacks on the other side, don't forget that we're all aiming for the same target, and our only real enemies are the bad apples, not each other.
Now, when a government DOES become tyrannical, the perpetrators tend towards different mechanisms. Since Democrats are already providing a social safety net, it is not difficult for them to increase that net so that a large segment of society is no longer just using it as a safety, but rather comes to rely on it. They cannot attack their government because without their government's assistance they fear they may not be capable of self support in the artificially stifled economy it takes to generate enough revenue to provide a safety net to this extent. Hence, the "sheep" comment. I was not talking about Democrats in general, healthy times, but rather in an extreme tyrannical phase the people MUST obey the government or face detrimental abandonment, hence sheep. Republican tyrannies tend towards a different route. They have focused on a large, growing economy. Within that economy there are a large number of people who are not only absolutely self sufficient with no aid whatsoever, but they also have a hell of alot to lose if the government decides to crack down and steal the wealth for themselves. They aren't afraid to put up a strong fight in the political arena because they only lose their security if they lose their battle with the government. The Democratically oppressed people lose their security if they WIN their fight with the government. Therefore, all other things being equal, if I had to choose my tyrannical government (god forbid) I'd rather
If what I stated was NOT core Democratic philosphy, then what is? I wrote down the typical party line in a non-spun manner. I could have copied those statements from the party website IMO. If you have a different interpretation of what a Deomcrat's core beliefs are I would be very interested in hearing them.
Of course I caught your caricature of a Libertarian. If I hadn't then I wouldn't have insinuated you were a nutjob;)
What is incongruent between the belief in personal freedom to do what you like to your own body through prostitution or drug use, yet still believe that a fetus is a living human and deserves the same protections as a toddler? The argument that the pro-lifers are only after control of other people's bodies is a strawman thrown out to confuse the issue. There is only one question relevant to the abortion debate: When does a human life acquire the right to life? Some people place that point at birth, some respect that right all the way back to ejaculate in a kleenex. You can think that drug criminalization is wrong, but life begins at conception with no logical incongruency.
Most of the west, except California doesn't give Democrats a chance either, but they still do OK;)
I'd look up the actually party line on environment, health and saftey (www.lp.org) but I don't have the time right now. Maybe tomorrow. I will say that *I'm* a libertarian and *I* don't believe that all environmental, health and saftey regulations should be thrown out the window, and I am not an atypical Libertarian (amongst the informed, non-anarchist, non-whack jobs anyway). I do think that health and saftey regulations should not be compulsory, but only require full disclosure, and I would support some changes to environmental policy, but throwing away all environmental regulation or consumer/employee saftey disclosure is just stupid. Milton Friedman had some writings that laid out plans along these lines, but he did NOT say everything should be thrown out, although he could be misinterpreted to mean that by someone who was not completely informed. I don't support his idea of ecological reform though, although some of his ideas had some interesting points.
The numbers are out there, but they still tell you NOTHING about the administration in charge. There are still too many variables to extract that fine grained of a conclusion from such noisy data. The scenario I laid out is just as plausible as saying Ford screwed up the economy for Carter and Clinton fixed everything and ushered in the greatest boom in history only to be screwed up by Bush.
It's kind of a silly arguement though, as Democratic philosophy doesn't even pretend to bolster the economy as a primary goal whereas Republic philosophy is absolutely centered on improving it. That's why the Republican party is often portrayed as a "party of the wealthy". Please correct me if you think I'm wrong here as I'm not trying to be facetious, but general philosophies are (if anything I think I'm being a bit too rough on Republican philosophy here):
On Poverty:
Republican: The economy should be bolstered because a plentiful economy provides enough excess to take care of the problem of poverty.
Democrat: The poor should be protected via safety nets even if it is at the sake of the economy. The welfare of all citizens is more important than speeding up economic growth.
On Business:
Republican: Successful businesses are the means in which work is provided for all people. The more successful business is, the more successful the population is in general. The tax structure should be such that business growth is promoted.
Democrat: Businesses typically put a disproportionate amount of wealth into a small segment of the population, often at the cost of the lowest tiers of the population. By burdening business with some of the responsibility of the welfare of it's employees, we can more fairly distribute that wealth throughout the population while better securing a decent lifestyle for working members of society.
On International Trade:
Republican: Trade should be free. By outsourcing work to where it can be done cheapest, products are provided more cheaply to our own population, who can in turn be earning more in more skilled labor positions.
Democrat: Trade should be guarded, even if it leads to higher prices of goods. The protection of US jobs in industries that might be devestated by international competition is more important than maximizing economic growth.
Citizen Taxation:
Republican: Taxes on individuals should be only mildly progressive, as the highest performers in society create the most economic growth and therefore should have the maximum incentive to perform at their highest potential, for through them the wealth of the entire country is increased including the wealth of the lowest earners.
Democrat: Taxes should be steeply progressive. The basic living requirements of all members of society should be attended to above all else. Earnings above a set liveable income are expendable and luxuries for the members that earn them and should be more stringently taxed to pay for services for the poor. What good is a rapidly growing economy if a segment of society is left behind?
I could go on and on. Republicans, in general, believe a strong economy solves most of the issues with poverty and crime because a wealthy populace is a happy populace. A majority of their programs are targeted towards such purpose. Democrats believe that the economy by itself doesn NOT solve all of societies ills and that if the economy must be sacrificed to insure the welfare of the population then it will be. They make absolutely no qualms about this and this fact is the battle flag the Democrats wave. If the Democrats tried to be best at improving the Economy then they would be Republicans!
Now you and I can point to individual administrations and individual toy projects on both sides and say how that case doesn't fit the pattern, but those anomalies are besides the point, as the very definition of the philosophies state clearly that Republicans work to improve the economy and Democrats work to secure the welfare.
Maybe Clinton was an EXCELLENT economist Democrat and Bush is a crappy Republican, but that doesn't change the philosophies of the parties.
No, my opinion is not baseless, I was simply pointing out that your request for hard empirical evidence is moot because without a control experiment neither of us can seperate "Presidential Administration" from the economic data as an independant variable in order to prove anything meaningful. We could sit and argue what the numbers mean, but it's completely up to interpretation.
The basis of my statement is in economic theory. Again, it's not an exact science, but neither is it baseless. It can be shown that economies that retain more activity in the private sector tend to grow more rapidly than those that have more activity in the public sector. Democratic administrations tend to have more Socialistic policies and pull more into the private sector. Keynesian economic theory also supports the notion that a lasse fare stance on the economy tends to support more growth, and the Democrats tend to put other social concerns above that of lasse fare economics more often than Republicans. Lower taxes gives companies more money to spend on R&D, employees and tool assets which grow business. The concepts are not baseless, but the data from the real economy is a bit too noisy to bear out the direct President to Economic health correlation.
By growth in defense jobs exceeding growth in jobs overall it cannot be inferred that without defense jobs there would be no job growth as job growth is not only a function of available jobs, but also of available skilled workers. It is quite possible that job growth overall would be nearly equal in the absence of defense growth if available workers is the constraining factor.
Deficit spending is not always a bad thing, and the absence of deficit spending under Clinton could be a factor in the economic downturn of 2000.
I will not defend Republican government growth and increased spending policies, as they are a primary reason I am not a Republican;) For rebuttal or clarification of the rest, please see the other thread.
:) As I said above... The party is burdened by way too many nutjobs.
As to those stances:
On abortion the Libs are split similarly to the Democrats. Most are pro-abortion rights, but among those there are many pro-abortion, anti Roe v. Wade Libs. The stance of those people is that, although the right to privacy is a nice idea, it is not enumerated in the Federal constitution and is therefore an issue to be addressed on the state level according to the 10th amendment.
Most Libs would be for legalizing Prostitution and taxing it, as well as legalizing at least some drugs. Gun control is almost unanimously agreed amongst Libertarians to be blatently unconstitutional. Most Libs would favor eliminating or reducing Social Security gradually over time. The recent Bush proposals would be popular with many Libertarians. Most would agree that Medicare, Medicaid, etc. need serious reform and probably consolidation. Libs are almost universally against Corporate subsidies of any kind, as if a business cannot survive profitably in the market then it shouldn't be a business. If it is a critical state required unprofitable activity (road building for instance) then it should be contracted by the state, not subsidized.
Most Libs are for environmental regulation. They are against many of the pseudo environmental regulations in which the government uses environmental excuses to excercise uncompensated emminent domain.
Most Libs are in favor of full disclosure of Health and Safety, but draw the line at the inability of the informed participant to make his own evaluated risk decision. If I want to climb to the top of an unrailguarded scaffold, why shouldn't I be allowed? It's my own life, not yours.
Libs are highly federalist and believe the federal government should be weakened considerably, as they are in total and blatent violation of the 10th amendment. State government, on the other hand, is not neccissarily out of line, depending on your state constitution, and some state governments should be strengthened to fill the gap that a receeding federal government would leave behind. Libertarians are not against criminalization of certain activities by any means, but they tend to be against criminalization of activites that have no bearing on anyone not partaking of the activity. Most Libs would agree that "Poisoning the water supply" is a criminal activity, but smoking marajuana in their own home is not. Many Libs would agree that not only is poisioning the water criminal, but it is federally regulateable if the body of water crosses state lines. They would also support the ability of individuals to sue for damages in civil court against the perpetraitors in addition to the State of Federal governments going after them.
No mainstream Libertarian is in favor of decriminalization of things like murder, rape, or theft and leaving those issues up to civil court. Those are clearcut crimes against individuals. On the other hand, most Libertarians would be supporters of those crimes being classified as state crimes, not federal, but that's semantics really.
Yes, but Bush hadn't been in office long enough to bungle the economy when the first major crash happened March, 2000. It can just as easily be argued that Carter's continued top tier tax increases on top of Kennedy's, with Ford and Nixon being ineefectual in policy making so that they couldn't reverse Kennedy's changes, were the cause of stagflation. Reagan came on the scene and chopped the taxes so that business could breath, which lead to a mini-boom that slowed down under Bush. Clinton, in his early years, (smartly) didn't touch anything, a mojor reason being his economic plans were too Socialistic to get widespread acceptance and he didn't even attempt more moderate ideas until later. The Reagan tax cuts, having finally had enough time to take root and allow years of business funding into R&D and low unemployment, caused a massive boom in the economy. As the Clinton years wore on, Clinton became more moderate and was finally able to get some programs through that would later stifle the economy only 3 months after he left office.
That explaination of the last 30 years is not very farfetched. Economics is too inexact a science so you can make the numbers pretty much say anything you want:)
Totally, but I can't vote for either of the big 2 with a clean conscience. It's a pipe dream, but it's my little dream where the lolipops grow on trees and a fairy does my laundry too.
On the other hand, major parties have collapsed before...
The stock market booms in anticipation of Republican Administrations and stagnates in anticipation of Democratic ones. Follow the money. The actual economic trends are harder to judge, for instance, was the 90's boom because of good policy under Clinton, because Reaganomics actually worked but had a 10 year lag before seeing any real benefit, or because technology just took off and it didn't matter who was in charge things were going to boom anyway. Both parties take credit for the 90's and they've got good points on both sides of the aisle, but the fact still stands that the large money holders who live or die by the health of the economy invest when they see a Republican coming and pull out when they see a Democrat.
Yeah. We need runoff voting or something. There is an artificially high representation of particularly Democrats out there because of the winner take all voting process. The conservative vote is way too fragmented with Libs, Reform, etc. I think, rather than an actual 50-50 split in American politics, the real numbers fall more along the lines of:
15% Socialist Democrats 35% Liberal Republicans 35% Libertarians 10% Authoritarian Conservatives 5% Other (Commies, Anarchists, etc.)
Socialist Democrats are the likes of Hillary Clinton... The typical hated targets of Limbaugh and the like. Liberal Republicans are what you've got in power right now, with their higher spending and nanny state security. Authoritarian Conservatives are distinguishable from the Liberal Republicans by their strong stance on enforcement of "traditional values" but tend to be much more conservative on spending and taxation. Libertarians are the old Republicans, to the right of Reagan economically and aligned with Clinton socially.
Right now, the Republican party gets all the Liberal Republicans, a chunk of the Libertarians, and panders to the Authoritarian Conservatives. The Dems get the Socialist Democrats, the rest of the Libertarians, almost all of the "other", and a huge chunk of the Liberal Republicans because they are terrified of the Authoritarian Republican component of the party. The Libertarians get what's left of the "other" after the Dems, since most "real" Libertarians vote Democrat or Republican for fear of wasting their vote.
With Runoff voting, the Democrats would all but disappear from the mainstream scene, because the Libs would go vote with the Libs, and the Commies would go vote with their party. The Republicans would still have the strongest party, but would lose a lot to the Libertarians and Authoritarian parties. The Libs would become a major party to rival the Republicans, and the Republicans could stop pandering to their Authoritarian constituency and be good liberals. With the parties no longer pandering to their fringe constituencies, you would see increased federalist policies in the big parties (and increased ant-federalist policies in the Socialist Democrats and Authoritarian Conservatives), and fewer incidents of schizophrenic policy making, like "cut taxes and spend", "equality for all except no gay marriages or anything that might alienate that 10% constituency we need", "bomb Albania so they don't see me acting Republican today" and "Control all weapons in the name of national security except the ones the NRA gives you free with the purchase of any happy meal."
Personally, if those were the only choices, I'd choose the Republican brand of tyranny. The Republicans tend to be better for the economy, and a wealthy populace is a very difficult populace to control as they have too much to lose. The Democrats have too many people eating out of the taxpayer coffers, which makes for a sheeplike constituency. It's a "dazzle them with dogma" vs. a "buy their loyalties" situation, and I think people are more easily bought than dazzled:) In addition, the Democrats are so damn anti-federalist. The Republicans have Federalism as part of their plank, which means by definition they are decentralized and more fragmented, so that even if some overbearing power grabbers take one office, the other Republicans in state and local venues have an opportunity to retain order. A true nazi style fascism would be if the Republicans adopted the Democrats anti-federalism and Socialist tendancies... then I'd be very afraid. With the whole "post 9-11 world" rhetoric and some of the mass spending going on though....
But really, it's a "choose your poison" scenario. I personally would prefer to vote the "no poison, please" ticket.
But things like Duffs device aren't "old school", rather they are highly specific optimizations that are almost never seen in the wild and if they are they are in a layer of code that people don't touch anyway. Most people who are skilled programmers have a brain anurism the first time they see Duffs device too.
Hey, if you have to expose your key... you don't want to rely on security by obscurity!
/Sarcasm
//People still use single DES?
///Well I guess it WAS 1998
Fillabuster is indeed a technique of minority power. But "going nuclear" is also a completely legitamate technique when the majority is completely overwhelming and is sick of the noise propegated by only a couple of people. Fillabuster only works when the minority is not completely outnumbered... if it worked all the time then there would never be a law passed ever because everyone would be fillabustering continuously.
You can't blame the Repubs for saying "Shut the hell up alread" when half the Democrats want the same thing.
Republicans let this happen, true. But it happened in the Primaries back in 2000. By the time the general rolls around it's too late. Most Republicans would rather have a hopefully salvageable Republican administration in charge than a neo-socialist Democratic one, particularly a Gore one who is arguably as far outside the Democratic mainstream as Bush was outside of the Republican. You can't blame a republican for voting for the Republican candidate as long as they still believe the party is salvageable. You *can* blame them for being dumbasses in their primaries though.
That said, I left the party mid way through Bush I for the Libertarians because I no longer believe it's salvageable. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican party left me.
IMHO, the Democratic party swung too far towards socialism in the pre-Reagan years (which is why the Reagan Democrats became Republicans) and left a vacuum in politics, which the Republican party got swept up by. The Republicans today are compareable with the 1970's Democrats, the Democrats have become a new socialist party, and the Libertarians are striving to fill the gap that the Republicans created when they swung left to take the old Democratic position, but they are doing a piss poor job of it because it's burdened with too many nut-jobs and has no concept on how to be a real party now that it actually has a chance to win stuff. Just look at their electing Badnarik in the National Convention when Nolan was the clear front runner (and probably could have pulled enough vote to get federal election money in 2008), and the excuse we all got back was "That Badnarik was a hell of a debater, and after the debate we all had dinner and drank too much, and we voted after dinner, then we all woke up the next morning and wer like, we did what?!?" Before that we ran Harry Brown... again, the party is burdened with too many nutjobs.
My dream is that the Dems continue to self destruct and go smoke weed with the Greens. The Repubs spend a term or two being what they are, new liberals, and the Libs figure out what makes you win elections and repopulates the Right Wing becoming the #2 dog.
Until I switched to Gentoo recently, I purchased all my Linux CD's. It was simply easier to have a few CD's mailed out to me then for me to keep a few gigs of CD image up to date, then burn them, etc. Slackware distributors have made a pretty penny from me over the years.
Or left that money in the economy... which would be my first choice.
Also, for comparison, the cost of Iraq in comparison with what would have been spent otherwise is quite a different figure. Before the war we were spending much money on bombing Iraq, protection of the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders, etc... which I'm not aware of those numbers, but I'll venture they weren't cheap. Also factor in that much of the occupation force is force that was occupying Germany since WWII, so not much increase in expenditure there. Then add the economic benefit and tax revenue of the elimination of the embargos. And the fact that much of the munitions used are munition disposal (sparrows and old sidewinders for instance, which are obsolete but fired because they are going to be thrown away anyway, which are factored into the cost but really are a savings because it costs money to dispose of them.
I'm not saying that Iraq's not expensive, but I simply don't believe the straightforward figures are very believable.
As for your programs, how would you reduce drunk driving fatalities more? We are innundated with advertisement already, there are huge extra patrol forces, many if not most states have reduced alcohol levels for DUI to the point where impairment is debatable, and penalties have been escalating to the point where people's lives are thrown into massive turmoil for a first and borderline offense. People are educated, penalties are stiff, enforcement is massive, what exactly do you want money to be spent on? Seriously. If you have suggestions I am curious.
Suicide prevention is honorable, but I don't really want alot of my tax money to be spent on anti-darwinistic programs instead of my children's education (maybe it's a little cold, but I worked hard for that money and I have priorities for it) and that doesn't affect my safety or well being whatsoever.
Again, I'm not saying that the money couldn't go to other good, perhaps greater good, but I'd rather see the money going to removing the problematic dictatorship we were forced to bomb once a week for a decade and enforce an internationally unpopular embargo than just blindly throwing money at programs of questionable benefit.
Except that automobile deaths are accidental. You can't retaliate against an accident, but you can against maliciousness. Automobiles become safer every year, they are targeted by both the manufacturer (to boost sales due to safety records) and government. Murderers are targeted also and the murder rate has been steadily declining for a very long time. You neglected to list your statistics for leaky dams, so I can't really comment. We can't very well target Vietnam and WWII deaths, as in recent years the incident rate has fallen to near zero.
Aren't auto accidents the leading non-disease related cause of death? It's actually pretty disturbing to me that terrorism accounts for a significant percentage of that number when compared.
Even if it was quicker, say over 50 years, we just move.
Parts of the globe that aren't nice places to live will look much nicer. Parts that are nice places won't be so nice. Without any kind of planning or preparation whatsoever people will get up and move to places that are nicer to live in, creating new economic centers. So Montreal gets a little snowbound... big deal, the city will shrink and some other city will grow.
Yup, I'm white, but let's see... I left home at 16. I didn't get any scholarship help, so I didn't get to go to college. I taught myself to program on school computers though. I got married young and my wife had some health problems. We were both working service sector and couldn't afford health care so we tried welfare... and I quote their response: "Well, we can't help you because you are white and you aren't pregnant. I suggest you get pregnant if you want health insurance." Needless to say, my wife went without health care because we were white.
I was lucky that a few years later, while I was bartending, A mexican man gave me a chance to program for a small company when I told him I had taught myself C++ years before. I became a software engineer and worked my way up. I am now a senior level engineer and make a nice middle class income. Suddenly though, I find myself attacked for being a "priveledged white man". WTF? Everything I earned I did through blood, sweat and tears in SPITE of the fact that I'm white, not because of it. I was poor and underpriveledged and didn't qualify for your scholarships or health care or anything else that the underpriveledged sometimes get because the color of my skin was wrong.
Somewhere along the line I must have misplaced my white priveledge coupon book because I missed out on all these favors I was supposed to receive. I'm not bitter or anything, just absolutely offended that people look at me as an excuse why they CAN'T be successfull because I'm white instead of seeing me as an example that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of origin.
For all of those that say white entitlement doesn't exisit, they just aren't white, rich, and racisit enough. For all of us "super-whites" we have a special ceremony on our 12th birthday where we get our "White Entitlement Card." It gets us into to whatever school we want, exclusive clubs, and even a seat in the Senate. A representative from Big Oil even comes and fills up our SUVs that we got from our white friend that owns the car dealership that uses illegal mexican labor. You even get 5 "get out of jail free" times, they punch the card though so it sucks when you get to #6 and have to go to low security club-med type prison.
I can't explain the rest right now, one of my servants just informed me that my favorite endangered species platter is ready for lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. My misunderstanding knows no bounds.
/Runs to hide in shame
Once again, you seem to forget that I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat and am neither defending not attacking either position. I listed, verbatim, the self expressed party lines of those 2 parties and you responded with an ad hominem attack that I must listen to Limbaugh. I am NOT nor have I EVER in this entire thread defended a specific policy of a specific administration on either side of the fence, but rather I was discussing the basic philosophy of the party. I ignored your ad hominem attack and requested you correct me and tell me that if I have got the basic tenets of Democratic Philosophy wrong, then please, praytell, you, who I assume are a Democrat from your stance, tell me WHAT IS IT YOU BELIEVE? But no, you still fail to respond to a direct question, and leave me to doubt that you even have a clue what Democratic philosophy is, and come off with simply more ad hominem rhetoric THAT ISN'T EVEN APPLICABLE because I already admitted, up front, which started the entire discussion, *I'M NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN*. I don't believe in what it is Republican's stand for and I refuse to defend their policies, but you're not even debating their policies, but rather attacking me personally because I'm not satisfying you by screaming that their all evil.
Call them all kooks if you want, but the fact of the matter is that your party can't win a fucking election to save their life in the middle of one of the least popular administrations in recent history. You've lost the congress, you've lost the senate, you've lost the presidency, you have almost no power anymore, your capaign money sources are abandoning you for greener pastures, and it is all because of what you are typifying right now. You don't even know what it is you believe anymore! You've spent so many years now whining and crying that Bush did this wrong, Bush did that wrong, Bush screwed us here and there and everywhere that you've forgotten that the American public refuses to elect whiners. ESPECIALLY whiners who can't explain their own ruling philosophy or present any kind of coherent alternative. It didn't work for the Republicans when they bitched and moaned about Clinton... They presented a moderate war hero (Dole) who should have been able to whoop the pants off of scandal ridden Clinton, but he didn't because his party was being a bunch of whiners. You guys did the same with Kerry and lost. The difference is, the Republicans LEARNED from their mistake and came back to kick your ass so bad you are a party in real danger of not existing 10 years from now. Kerry's biggest platform was "Hey at least I'm not that other guy." JEEZUS! You wonder why he lost? If it weren't for the fact that Bush's entire party knows he's a fucknut it wouldn't even have been close! sean hannity, ann coulter, david horowitz, rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly are all kooks, but they are kooks who actually stand for SOMETHING other than "vote for us, we have no policy" and that's why they win, because there is no competion anymore in the arena of "standing for something". oh wait, I guess you did sum up your parties entire plank up above when you admitted that the sole reason Democrats exist is to "pay the people who put them into office with generous subsidies and govt contracts." Geez, at least the Republicans are smart enough to still cover that plank up a little.
And you say the Libertarians are out of touch with reality...
I am not stating specifics, that President X (R) helped the economy more than President Y (D). I'm not a Republican and I don't want to end up in an argument where I'm defending the individual policies of an administration I don't support in the first place. My statement was that in general, economies have a tendancy to grow faster under Republican rule. This is by virtue of the philosophy of the individual parties and what they hold most dear.
Your closing statement is a strawman. ALL parties, except for a couple far fringe nutcase parties, have the exact same goals... A prosperous populace where the welfare of all members of society is unthreatened by poverty, ill health, crime or invasion. The difference between the parties is that they disagree with the best way to go about accomplishing that.
By their own stance, the Democratic philosophy freely and openly admits that the economic welfare of the lowest earning members of society is of utmost importance, even if that means that the overall economic good of the country must take a second seat to achieve that goal. What good is a strong economy if we leave some people behind in order to achieve it? As the generosity of society is not guaranteed, there must be a strong compulsory mechanism in place to ensure that all members of society recieve at least a minimal humane life.
The Republican philosophy is that if the economy is strong enough, then the welfare of the lowest earning capable members of society is already assured. The only welfare that must be attended to is that of the incapable members of society, eg. the elderly, the young and the disabled, however, the surpluses generated by a strong economy will provide for a majority of those via non compulsory mechanisms, charity, family, etc... so the compulsory burden on society need only be minimal. In order to guarantee this, we must strive for a strong economy over nearly anything else.
The entire basis of Republican economic philosophy hinges on the ideal that a strong economy is the primary goal. The Democratic philosophy is willing to sacrifice the economy to some extent to achieve what they see as a greater goal. The Republican philosophy has a tendancy therefore to achieve greater economic gains overall, naturally, because that is their goal. Neither philosophy is evil, or even neccissarily wrong. There ARE bad Republicans and bad Democrats, but in our vitriolic attacks on the other side, don't forget that we're all aiming for the same target, and our only real enemies are the bad apples, not each other.
Now, when a government DOES become tyrannical, the perpetrators tend towards different mechanisms. Since Democrats are already providing a social safety net, it is not difficult for them to increase that net so that a large segment of society is no longer just using it as a safety, but rather comes to rely on it. They cannot attack their government because without their government's assistance they fear they may not be capable of self support in the artificially stifled economy it takes to generate enough revenue to provide a safety net to this extent. Hence, the "sheep" comment. I was not talking about Democrats in general, healthy times, but rather in an extreme tyrannical phase the people MUST obey the government or face detrimental abandonment, hence sheep. Republican tyrannies tend towards a different route. They have focused on a large, growing economy. Within that economy there are a large number of people who are not only absolutely self sufficient with no aid whatsoever, but they also have a hell of alot to lose if the government decides to crack down and steal the wealth for themselves. They aren't afraid to put up a strong fight in the political arena because they only lose their security if they lose their battle with the government. The Democratically oppressed people lose their security if they WIN their fight with the government. Therefore, all other things being equal, if I had to choose my tyrannical government (god forbid) I'd rather
If what I stated was NOT core Democratic philosphy, then what is? I wrote down the typical party line in a non-spun manner. I could have copied those statements from the party website IMO. If you have a different interpretation of what a Deomcrat's core beliefs are I would be very interested in hearing them.
Of course I caught your caricature of a Libertarian. If I hadn't then I wouldn't have insinuated you were a nutjob ;)
;)
What is incongruent between the belief in personal freedom to do what you like to your own body through prostitution or drug use, yet still believe that a fetus is a living human and deserves the same protections as a toddler? The argument that the pro-lifers are only after control of other people's bodies is a strawman thrown out to confuse the issue. There is only one question relevant to the abortion debate: When does a human life acquire the right to life? Some people place that point at birth, some respect that right all the way back to ejaculate in a kleenex. You can think that drug criminalization is wrong, but life begins at conception with no logical incongruency.
Most of the west, except California doesn't give Democrats a chance either, but they still do OK
I'd look up the actually party line on environment, health and saftey (www.lp.org) but I don't have the time right now. Maybe tomorrow. I will say that *I'm* a libertarian and *I* don't believe that all environmental, health and saftey regulations should be thrown out the window, and I am not an atypical Libertarian (amongst the informed, non-anarchist, non-whack jobs anyway). I do think that health and saftey regulations should not be compulsory, but only require full disclosure, and I would support some changes to environmental policy, but throwing away all environmental regulation or consumer/employee saftey disclosure is just stupid. Milton Friedman had some writings that laid out plans along these lines, but he did NOT say everything should be thrown out, although he could be misinterpreted to mean that by someone who was not completely informed. I don't support his idea of ecological reform though, although some of his ideas had some interesting points.
The numbers are out there, but they still tell you NOTHING about the administration in charge. There are still too many variables to extract that fine grained of a conclusion from such noisy data. The scenario I laid out is just as plausible as saying Ford screwed up the economy for Carter and Clinton fixed everything and ushered in the greatest boom in history only to be screwed up by Bush.
It's kind of a silly arguement though, as Democratic philosophy doesn't even pretend to bolster the economy as a primary goal whereas Republic philosophy is absolutely centered on improving it. That's why the Republican party is often portrayed as a "party of the wealthy". Please correct me if you think I'm wrong here as I'm not trying to be facetious, but general philosophies are (if anything I think I'm being a bit too rough on Republican philosophy here):
On Poverty:
Republican: The economy should be bolstered because a plentiful economy provides enough excess to take care of the problem of poverty.
Democrat: The poor should be protected via safety nets even if it is at the sake of the economy. The welfare of all citizens is more important than speeding up economic growth.
On Business:
Republican: Successful businesses are the means in which work is provided for all people. The more successful business is, the more successful the population is in general. The tax structure should be such that business growth is promoted.
Democrat: Businesses typically put a disproportionate amount of wealth into a small segment of the population, often at the cost of the lowest tiers of the population. By burdening business with some of the responsibility of the welfare of it's employees, we can more fairly distribute that wealth throughout the population while better securing a decent lifestyle for working members of society.
On International Trade:
Republican: Trade should be free. By outsourcing work to where it can be done cheapest, products are provided more cheaply to our own population, who can in turn be earning more in more skilled labor positions.
Democrat: Trade should be guarded, even if it leads to higher prices of goods. The protection of US jobs in industries that might be devestated by international competition is more important than maximizing economic growth.
Citizen Taxation:
Republican: Taxes on individuals should be only mildly progressive, as the highest performers in society create the most economic growth and therefore should have the maximum incentive to perform at their highest potential, for through them the wealth of the entire country is increased including the wealth of the lowest earners.
Democrat: Taxes should be steeply progressive. The basic living requirements of all members of society should be attended to above all else. Earnings above a set liveable income are expendable and luxuries for the members that earn them and should be more stringently taxed to pay for services for the poor. What good is a rapidly growing economy if a segment of society is left behind?
I could go on and on. Republicans, in general, believe a strong economy solves most of the issues with poverty and crime because a wealthy populace is a happy populace. A majority of their programs are targeted towards such purpose. Democrats believe that the economy by itself doesn NOT solve all of societies ills and that if the economy must be sacrificed to insure the welfare of the population then it will be. They make absolutely no qualms about this and this fact is the battle flag the Democrats wave. If the Democrats tried to be best at improving the Economy then they would be Republicans!
Now you and I can point to individual administrations and individual toy projects on both sides and say how that case doesn't fit the pattern, but those anomalies are besides the point, as the very definition of the philosophies state clearly that Republicans work to improve the economy and Democrats work to secure the welfare.
Maybe Clinton was an EXCELLENT economist Democrat and Bush is a crappy Republican, but that doesn't change the philosophies of the parties.
Economy, not environment :)
No, my opinion is not baseless, I was simply pointing out that your request for hard empirical evidence is moot because without a control experiment neither of us can seperate "Presidential Administration" from the economic data as an independant variable in order to prove anything meaningful. We could sit and argue what the numbers mean, but it's completely up to interpretation.
The basis of my statement is in economic theory. Again, it's not an exact science, but neither is it baseless. It can be shown that economies that retain more activity in the private sector tend to grow more rapidly than those that have more activity in the public sector. Democratic administrations tend to have more Socialistic policies and pull more into the private sector. Keynesian economic theory also supports the notion that a lasse fare stance on the economy tends to support more growth, and the Democrats tend to put other social concerns above that of lasse fare economics more often than Republicans. Lower taxes gives companies more money to spend on R&D, employees and tool assets which grow business. The concepts are not baseless, but the data from the real economy is a bit too noisy to bear out the direct President to Economic health correlation.
By growth in defense jobs exceeding growth in jobs overall it cannot be inferred that without defense jobs there would be no job growth as job growth is not only a function of available jobs, but also of available skilled workers. It is quite possible that job growth overall would be nearly equal in the absence of defense growth if available workers is the constraining factor. Deficit spending is not always a bad thing, and the absence of deficit spending under Clinton could be a factor in the economic downturn of 2000. I will not defend Republican government growth and increased spending policies, as they are a primary reason I am not a Republican ;) For rebuttal or clarification of the rest, please see the other thread.
:) As I said above... The party is burdened by way too many nutjobs.
As to those stances:
On abortion the Libs are split similarly to the Democrats. Most are pro-abortion rights, but among those there are many pro-abortion, anti Roe v. Wade Libs. The stance of those people is that, although the right to privacy is a nice idea, it is not enumerated in the Federal constitution and is therefore an issue to be addressed on the state level according to the 10th amendment.
Most Libs would be for legalizing Prostitution and taxing it, as well as legalizing at least some drugs. Gun control is almost unanimously agreed amongst Libertarians to be blatently unconstitutional. Most Libs would favor eliminating or reducing Social Security gradually over time. The recent Bush proposals would be popular with many Libertarians. Most would agree that Medicare, Medicaid, etc. need serious reform and probably consolidation. Libs are almost universally against Corporate subsidies of any kind, as if a business cannot survive profitably in the market then it shouldn't be a business. If it is a critical state required unprofitable activity (road building for instance) then it should be contracted by the state, not subsidized.
Most Libs are for environmental regulation. They are against many of the pseudo environmental regulations in which the government uses environmental excuses to excercise uncompensated emminent domain.
Most Libs are in favor of full disclosure of Health and Safety, but draw the line at the inability of the informed participant to make his own evaluated risk decision. If I want to climb to the top of an unrailguarded scaffold, why shouldn't I be allowed? It's my own life, not yours.
Libs are highly federalist and believe the federal government should be weakened considerably, as they are in total and blatent violation of the 10th amendment. State government, on the other hand, is not neccissarily out of line, depending on your state constitution, and some state governments should be strengthened to fill the gap that a receeding federal government would leave behind. Libertarians are not against criminalization of certain activities by any means, but they tend to be against criminalization of activites that have no bearing on anyone not partaking of the activity. Most Libs would agree that "Poisoning the water supply" is a criminal activity, but smoking marajuana in their own home is not. Many Libs would agree that not only is poisioning the water criminal, but it is federally regulateable if the body of water crosses state lines. They would also support the ability of individuals to sue for damages in civil court against the perpetraitors in addition to the State of Federal governments going after them.
No mainstream Libertarian is in favor of decriminalization of things like murder, rape, or theft and leaving those issues up to civil court. Those are clearcut crimes against individuals. On the other hand, most Libertarians would be supporters of those crimes being classified as state crimes, not federal, but that's semantics really.
Yes, but Bush hadn't been in office long enough to bungle the economy when the first major crash happened March, 2000. It can just as easily be argued that Carter's continued top tier tax increases on top of Kennedy's, with Ford and Nixon being ineefectual in policy making so that they couldn't reverse Kennedy's changes, were the cause of stagflation. Reagan came on the scene and chopped the taxes so that business could breath, which lead to a mini-boom that slowed down under Bush. Clinton, in his early years, (smartly) didn't touch anything, a mojor reason being his economic plans were too Socialistic to get widespread acceptance and he didn't even attempt more moderate ideas until later. The Reagan tax cuts, having finally had enough time to take root and allow years of business funding into R&D and low unemployment, caused a massive boom in the economy. As the Clinton years wore on, Clinton became more moderate and was finally able to get some programs through that would later stifle the economy only 3 months after he left office.
:)
That explaination of the last 30 years is not very farfetched. Economics is too inexact a science so you can make the numbers pretty much say anything you want
Totally, but I can't vote for either of the big 2 with a clean conscience. It's a pipe dream, but it's my little dream where the lolipops grow on trees and a fairy does my laundry too.
On the other hand, major parties have collapsed before...
The stock market booms in anticipation of Republican Administrations and stagnates in anticipation of Democratic ones. Follow the money. The actual economic trends are harder to judge, for instance, was the 90's boom because of good policy under Clinton, because Reaganomics actually worked but had a 10 year lag before seeing any real benefit, or because technology just took off and it didn't matter who was in charge things were going to boom anyway. Both parties take credit for the 90's and they've got good points on both sides of the aisle, but the fact still stands that the large money holders who live or die by the health of the economy invest when they see a Republican coming and pull out when they see a Democrat.
Yeah. We need runoff voting or something. There is an artificially high representation of particularly Democrats out there because of the winner take all voting process. The conservative vote is way too fragmented with Libs, Reform, etc. I think, rather than an actual 50-50 split in American politics, the real numbers fall more along the lines of:
15% Socialist Democrats
35% Liberal Republicans
35% Libertarians
10% Authoritarian Conservatives
5% Other (Commies, Anarchists, etc.)
Socialist Democrats are the likes of Hillary Clinton... The typical hated targets of Limbaugh and the like.
Liberal Republicans are what you've got in power right now, with their higher spending and nanny state security. Authoritarian Conservatives are distinguishable from the Liberal Republicans by their strong stance on enforcement of "traditional values" but tend to be much more conservative on spending and taxation. Libertarians are the old Republicans, to the right of Reagan economically and aligned with Clinton socially.
Right now, the Republican party gets all the Liberal Republicans, a chunk of the Libertarians, and panders to the Authoritarian Conservatives. The Dems get the Socialist Democrats, the rest of the Libertarians, almost all of the "other", and a huge chunk of the Liberal Republicans because they are terrified of the Authoritarian Republican component of the party. The Libertarians get what's left of the "other" after the Dems, since most "real" Libertarians vote Democrat or Republican for fear of wasting their vote.
With Runoff voting, the Democrats would all but disappear from the mainstream scene, because the Libs would go vote with the Libs, and the Commies would go vote with their party. The Republicans would still have the strongest party, but would lose a lot to the Libertarians and Authoritarian parties. The Libs would become a major party to rival the Republicans, and the Republicans could stop pandering to their Authoritarian constituency and be good liberals. With the parties no longer pandering to their fringe constituencies, you would see increased federalist policies in the big parties (and increased ant-federalist policies in the Socialist Democrats and Authoritarian Conservatives), and fewer incidents of schizophrenic policy making, like "cut taxes and spend", "equality for all except no gay marriages or anything that might alienate that 10% constituency we need", "bomb Albania so they don't see me acting Republican today" and "Control all weapons in the name of national security except the ones the NRA gives you free with the purchase of any happy meal."
One can only dream...
Personally, if those were the only choices, I'd choose the Republican brand of tyranny. The Republicans tend to be better for the economy, and a wealthy populace is a very difficult populace to control as they have too much to lose. The Democrats have too many people eating out of the taxpayer coffers, which makes for a sheeplike constituency. It's a "dazzle them with dogma" vs. a "buy their loyalties" situation, and I think people are more easily bought than dazzled :) In addition, the Democrats are so damn anti-federalist. The Republicans have Federalism as part of their plank, which means by definition they are decentralized and more fragmented, so that even if some overbearing power grabbers take one office, the other Republicans in state and local venues have an opportunity to retain order. A true nazi style fascism would be if the Republicans adopted the Democrats anti-federalism and Socialist tendancies... then I'd be very afraid. With the whole "post 9-11 world" rhetoric and some of the mass spending going on though....
But really, it's a "choose your poison" scenario. I personally would prefer to vote the "no poison, please" ticket.
But things like Duffs device aren't "old school", rather they are highly specific optimizations that are almost never seen in the wild and if they are they are in a layer of code that people don't touch anyway. Most people who are skilled programmers have a brain anurism the first time they see Duffs device too.
Hey, if you have to expose your key... you don't want to rely on security by obscurity!
/Sarcasm
//People still use single DES?
///Well I guess it WAS 1998
Fillabuster is indeed a technique of minority power. But "going nuclear" is also a completely legitamate technique when the majority is completely overwhelming and is sick of the noise propegated by only a couple of people. Fillabuster only works when the minority is not completely outnumbered... if it worked all the time then there would never be a law passed ever because everyone would be fillabustering continuously.
You can't blame the Repubs for saying "Shut the hell up alread" when half the Democrats want the same thing.
Republicans let this happen, true. But it happened in the Primaries back in 2000. By the time the general rolls around it's too late. Most Republicans would rather have a hopefully salvageable Republican administration in charge than a neo-socialist Democratic one, particularly a Gore one who is arguably as far outside the Democratic mainstream as Bush was outside of the Republican. You can't blame a republican for voting for the Republican candidate as long as they still believe the party is salvageable. You *can* blame them for being dumbasses in their primaries though.
That said, I left the party mid way through Bush I for the Libertarians because I no longer believe it's salvageable. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican party left me.
IMHO, the Democratic party swung too far towards socialism in the pre-Reagan years (which is why the Reagan Democrats became Republicans) and left a vacuum in politics, which the Republican party got swept up by. The Republicans today are compareable with the 1970's Democrats, the Democrats have become a new socialist party, and the Libertarians are striving to fill the gap that the Republicans created when they swung left to take the old Democratic position, but they are doing a piss poor job of it because it's burdened with too many nut-jobs and has no concept on how to be a real party now that it actually has a chance to win stuff. Just look at their electing Badnarik in the National Convention when Nolan was the clear front runner (and probably could have pulled enough vote to get federal election money in 2008), and the excuse we all got back was "That Badnarik was a hell of a debater, and after the debate we all had dinner and drank too much, and we voted after dinner, then we all woke up the next morning and wer like, we did what?!?" Before that we ran Harry Brown... again, the party is burdened with too many nutjobs.
My dream is that the Dems continue to self destruct and go smoke weed with the Greens. The Repubs spend a term or two being what they are, new liberals, and the Libs figure out what makes you win elections and repopulates the Right Wing becoming the #2 dog.
Until I switched to Gentoo recently, I purchased all my Linux CD's. It was simply easier to have a few CD's mailed out to me then for me to keep a few gigs of CD image up to date, then burn them, etc. Slackware distributors have made a pretty penny from me over the years.
Or left that money in the economy... which would be my first choice.
Also, for comparison, the cost of Iraq in comparison with what would have been spent otherwise is quite a different figure. Before the war we were spending much money on bombing Iraq, protection of the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders, etc... which I'm not aware of those numbers, but I'll venture they weren't cheap. Also factor in that much of the occupation force is force that was occupying Germany since WWII, so not much increase in expenditure there. Then add the economic benefit and tax revenue of the elimination of the embargos. And the fact that much of the munitions used are munition disposal (sparrows and old sidewinders for instance, which are obsolete but fired because they are going to be thrown away anyway, which are factored into the cost but really are a savings because it costs money to dispose of them.
I'm not saying that Iraq's not expensive, but I simply don't believe the straightforward figures are very believable.
As for your programs, how would you reduce drunk driving fatalities more? We are innundated with advertisement already, there are huge extra patrol forces, many if not most states have reduced alcohol levels for DUI to the point where impairment is debatable, and penalties have been escalating to the point where people's lives are thrown into massive turmoil for a first and borderline offense. People are educated, penalties are stiff, enforcement is massive, what exactly do you want money to be spent on? Seriously. If you have suggestions I am curious.
Suicide prevention is honorable, but I don't really want alot of my tax money to be spent on anti-darwinistic programs instead of my children's education (maybe it's a little cold, but I worked hard for that money and I have priorities for it) and that doesn't affect my safety or well being whatsoever.
Again, I'm not saying that the money couldn't go to other good, perhaps greater good, but I'd rather see the money going to removing the problematic dictatorship we were forced to bomb once a week for a decade and enforce an internationally unpopular embargo than just blindly throwing money at programs of questionable benefit.
Except that automobile deaths are accidental. You can't retaliate against an accident, but you can against maliciousness. Automobiles become safer every year, they are targeted by both the manufacturer (to boost sales due to safety records) and government. Murderers are targeted also and the murder rate has been steadily declining for a very long time. You neglected to list your statistics for leaky dams, so I can't really comment. We can't very well target Vietnam and WWII deaths, as in recent years the incident rate has fallen to near zero.
Aren't auto accidents the leading non-disease related cause of death? It's actually pretty disturbing to me that terrorism accounts for a significant percentage of that number when compared.
Even if it was quicker, say over 50 years, we just move.
Parts of the globe that aren't nice places to live will look much nicer. Parts that are nice places won't be so nice. Without any kind of planning or preparation whatsoever people will get up and move to places that are nicer to live in, creating new economic centers. So Montreal gets a little snowbound... big deal, the city will shrink and some other city will grow.
Yup, I'm white, but let's see... I left home at 16. I didn't get any scholarship help, so I didn't get to go to college. I taught myself to program on school computers though. I got married young and my wife had some health problems. We were both working service sector and couldn't afford health care so we tried welfare... and I quote their response: "Well, we can't help you because you are white and you aren't pregnant. I suggest you get pregnant if you want health insurance." Needless to say, my wife went without health care because we were white.
I was lucky that a few years later, while I was bartending, A mexican man gave me a chance to program for a small company when I told him I had taught myself C++ years before. I became a software engineer and worked my way up. I am now a senior level engineer and make a nice middle class income. Suddenly though, I find myself attacked for being a "priveledged white man". WTF? Everything I earned I did through blood, sweat and tears in SPITE of the fact that I'm white, not because of it. I was poor and underpriveledged and didn't qualify for your scholarships or health care or anything else that the underpriveledged sometimes get because the color of my skin was wrong.
Somewhere along the line I must have misplaced my white priveledge coupon book because I missed out on all these favors I was supposed to receive. I'm not bitter or anything, just absolutely offended that people look at me as an excuse why they CAN'T be successfull because I'm white instead of seeing me as an example that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of origin.
Hehe. Yes, that was blatently plagerized, but it was so brilliant I've kept it around.
:)
Good to see you here and my apologies for the copying without acknowledgement, but I neglected to write down the source
For all of those that say white entitlement doesn't exisit, they just aren't white, rich, and racisit enough. For all of us "super-whites" we have a special ceremony on our 12th birthday where we get our "White Entitlement Card." It gets us into to whatever school we want, exclusive clubs, and even a seat in the Senate. A representative from Big Oil even comes and fills up our SUVs that we got from our white friend that owns the car dealership that uses illegal mexican labor. You even get 5 "get out of jail free" times, they punch the card though so it sucks when you get to #6 and have to go to low security club-med type prison.
I can't explain the rest right now, one of my servants just informed me that my favorite endangered species platter is ready for lunch.