Rethinking America

As it is the Fourth of July and I have a lot on my mind regarding the policies of our lovely federal government I thought I would start this thread as a positive space for people to voice their opinions...

I will start by saying that as a native born American, our country has terrible policies regarding immigration. We mistreat our neighbors and tear families apart over this issue. I have many close friends who have relatives or immediate family who cannot enter our borders due to immigration laws and the fact that so many of my American-born friends seem to think that "immigrants are stealing away jobs for Americans" is preposterous to me! If American companies so wanted, they could pick up all operations within the USA and move them abroad to outsource and save money on labor. Furthermore, many of my "friends" who say such things are too lazy to keep the jobs they "lost to immigrants".
What a racist way of looking at the world...

Love conquers all and no laws will keep families from being together!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

As it is the Fourth of July and I have a lot on my mind regarding the policies of our lovely federal government I thought I would start this thread as a positive space for people to voice their opinions...

I will start by saying that as a native born American, our country has terrible policies regarding immigration. We mistreat our neighbors and tear families apart over this issue. I have many close friends who have relatives or immediate family who cannot enter our borders due to immigration laws and the fact that so many of my American-born friends seem to think that "immigrants are stealing away jobs for Americans" is preposterous to me! If American companies so wanted, they could pick up all operations within the USA and move them abroad to outsource and save money on labor. Furthermore, many of my "friends" who say such things are too lazy to keep the jobs they "lost to immigrants".
What a racist way of looking at the world...

Love conquers all and no laws will keep families from being together!

---

Umm.... Lots and lots of American companies have already moved their operations overseas for cheap labor and more continue to follow (Thanks Al Baby!)...... Why do you think the only jobs for us citizens anymore basically are service sector jobs? Hint: We don't hardly make anything here anymore! So when an American who doesn't have a job and sees a criminal (illegal alien) get a job like its nothing (because they are basically slaves working for slave wages), it is definitely not racist for them to be angry. It is humane and natural for them to be upset when they are being screwed over by companies who hire slaves and perpetuate slavery.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Umm.... Lots and lots of American companies have already moved their operations overseas for cheap labor and more continue to follow (Thanks Al Baby!)...... Why do you think the only jobs for us citizens anymore basically are service sector jobs? Hint: We don't hardly make anything here anymore! So when an American who doesn't have a job and sees a criminal (illegal alien) get a job like its nothing (because they are basically slaves working for slave wages), it is definitely not racist for them to be angry. It is humane and natural for them to be upset when they are being screwed over by companies who hire slaves and perpetuate slavery.

---

Okay you are entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion is racist and prejudiced.
Yes companies leave the USA for other countries where they can hire cheaper labor. Yes, some people work for less pay than others. It is supply and demand in the personnel sector. Supply and demand is the essence of capitalism, which is the current foundation of American (and much of the world's -- all of the democratic world's) economic system. And America will fight to the death to protect (and convert the rest of the world) to this economic system.
Is that the fault of our neighbors in Mexico who work at maquilas along the border to supply the country with "Made in the USA" goods? I think not! Or the fault of legal immigrants, with their green cards or even
citizenship papers, to the USA? Again, I don't think so!
If the only jobs available to you good sir are service jobs, then maybe you should consider getting a higher education. Here in the United States upward mobility is very achievable, which is a huge part of why so many people want to be here. If you chose not to study in school and not to go on to a college or university to be competitive in today's job market, that is entirely your own problem.
The point of this thread is not to argue -- there is enough crap coming from the point's of view of people like you. This thread is to rethink the way we think about things.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

Okay you are entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion is racist and prejudiced.
Yes companies leave the USA for other countries where they can hire cheaper labor. Yes, some people work for less pay than others. It is supply and demand in the personnel sector. Supply and demand is the essence of capitalism, which is the current foundation of American (and much of the world's -- all of the democratic world's) economic system. And America will fight to the death to protect (and convert the rest of the world) to this economic system.
Is that the fault of our neighbors in Mexico who work at maquilas along the border to supply the country with "Made in the USA" goods? I think not! Or the fault of legal immigrants, with their green cards or even
citizenship papers, to the USA? Again, I don't think so!
If the only jobs available to you good sir are service jobs, then maybe you should consider getting a higher education. Here in the United States upward mobility is very achievable, which is a huge part of why so many people want to be here. If you chose not to study in school and not to go on to a college or university to be competitive in today's job market, that is entirely your own problem.
The point of this thread is not to argue -- there is enough crap coming from the point's of view of people like you. This thread is to rethink the way we think about things.

---

Racist? Prejudiced? How so? Your the only one bringing race into the picture, maybe your the racist? I certainly am not. Why are we Americans so quick to judge people as racist? Maybe that is something we should be rethinking?

Its not just me that cant find a good job that is not in the service sector, its about 20% of our population!! And that is not all their fault! You see, Ive met several people who are highly trained and educated, yet have been out of work for up to two years now! They are overqualified for the small amount of jobs available, and overwhelmed with applicants for those few jobs that actually correlate with their education and skill level. You see, its not as simple as going to school and making yourself into whatever you want.

You talk about supply and demand as though the American companies who hire illegal immigrants are doing so legally.... Wrong. This isn't simply supply and demand, it is breaking the law! And it is inhumane and not a part of our economic or social structure, hence it being against the law!

I'm just trying to help people rethink the way they think about these things too.... Starting with people who choose to call people racists without even knowing them or taking the time to understand them, such as yourself.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Racist? Prejudiced? How so? Your the only one bringing race into the picture, maybe your the racist? I certainly am not. Why are we Americans so quick to judge people as racist? Maybe that is something we should be rethinking?

Its not just me that cant find a good job that is not in the service sector, its about 20% of our population!! And that is not all their fault! You see, Ive met several people who are highly trained and educated, yet have been out of work for up to two years now! They are overqualified for the small amount of jobs available, and overwhelmed with applicants for those few jobs that actually correlate with their education and skill level. You see, its not as simple as going to school and making yourself into whatever you want.

You talk about supply and demand as though the American companies who hire illegal immigrants are doing so legally.... Wrong. This isn't simply supply and demand, it is breaking the law! And it is inhumane and not a part of our economic or social structure, hence it being against the law!

I'm just trying to help people rethink the way they think about these things too.... Starting with people who choose to call people racists without even knowing them or taking the time to understand them, such as yourself.

---

I called you a racist because you are justifying anger against innocent people who are merely trying to put food on the table like anyone else.
Yes, we should be angry at the corporations and the lawmakers, not at the individuals who are a pawn in this system.
Yes it is against the law! And yes it is unethical!
And sadly, yes we are going through hard times right now, but playing the blame game with people who are not at all to blame is not acceptable to me. I was upset with your post because you were justifying this angry sentiment towards innocent folks who happen to be in the position to work for cheaper wages. Plus some immigrants do NOT work service sector jobs -- some are very highly educated professionals. So to say because one person has a green card, they will be working excliusively in service jobs is completely racist.
Actually now that you bring it up the concept of race is racist! So yes it was wrong for me to call you a racist, I think prejudiced is a better word.
I am glad this discussion is starting to go somewhere.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Umm.... Lots and lots of American companies have already moved their operations overseas for cheap labor and more continue to follow (Thanks Al Baby...

---

Deindustrialization and shipping jobs out of the country to cheaper labor markets, has been going on since the decline of manufacturing and the creation of the "Rust Belt" in the 1970's. You can't lay all that at the door of Al Gore.

What is the basis of this vendetta you seem to have going against him?

I'm not his fan, I think he was a terrible candidate in 2000 (not that I cared much since I was working for Nader, so the Green Party might qualify for Federal matching funds and have to resources to build a real organization in the years after. We didn't make it, but it wasn't "Al's" fault.) and didn't fight for a full vote recount that would have put him in office. Lately he's in trouble for an alleged sexual assault in Oregon that was supposed to have taken place four years ago. (Innocent until proven guilty, hence my use of "alleged" and "supposed".)

But laying the problems of post-industrial economic decline at his feet? Makes no sense, and is factually innacurate. Bill Clinton was a full on neo-liberal globalizationist. I doubt he took his marching orders from his Vice President. If you want to blame a U.S. leader for job destruction, why not him? And the Bush's? And Reagan? And Carter? And Ford? And Nixon?

But if "anyone" is fundamentally responsible, it is an economic system that privileges the market over the needs of people. When that is seen as inevitable, unavoidable and the best possible arrangement, then everyone who buys that and acts accordingly, is responsible. In particular the CEO's, CFO's and Board of Directors members who call the shots. But of course, they're only maximising profits for their shareholders, doing what they were hired to do in the case of the first two categories and what is best for their own wealth accumulation and maintenance in the latter group. In other words they're playing the game, according to the rules, and are just the most successful at it. So things can't be their fault either. Right?

Your assertions here would be more persuasive if you didn't keep making claims that are not congruent with the facts known by any observer or historian. You must be getting this stuff from some biased source. What is it? Could the renewed Randist fringe movement have anything to do with it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Deindustrialization and shipping jobs out of the country to cheaper labor markets, has been going on since the decline of manufacturing and the creation of the "Rust Belt" in the 1970's. You can't lay all that at the door of Al Gore.

What is the basis of this vendetta you seem to have going against him?

I'm not his fan, I think he was a terrible candidate in 2000 (not that I cared much since I was working for Nader, so the Green Party might qualify for Federal matching funds and have to resources to build a real organization in the years after. We didn't make it, but it wasn't "Al's" fault.) and didn't fight for a full vote recount that would have put him in office. Lately he's in trouble for an alleged sexual assault in Oregon that was supposed to have taken place four years ago. (Innocent until proven guilty, hence my use of "alleged" and "supposed".)

But laying the problems of post-industrial economic decline at his feet? Makes no sense, and is factually innacurate. Bill Clinton was a full on neo-liberal globalizationist. I doubt he took his marching orders from his Vice President. If you want to blame a U.S. leader for job destruction, why not him? And the Bush's? And Reagan? And Carter? And Ford? And Nixon?

But if "anyone" is fundamentally responsible, it is an economic system that privileges the market over the needs of people. When that is seen as inevitable, unavoidable and the best possible arrangement, then everyone who buys that and acts accordingly, is responsible. In particular the CEO's, CFO's and Board of Directors members who call the shots. But of course, they're only maximising profits for their shareholders, doing what they were hired to do in the case of the first two categories and what is best for their own wealth accumulation and maintenance in the latter group. In other words they're playing the game, according to the rules, and are just the most successful at it. So things can't be their fault either. Right?

Your assertions here would be more persuasive if you didn't keep making claims that are not congruent with the facts known by any observer or historian. You must be getting this stuff from some biased source. What is it? Could the renewed Randist fringe movement have anything to do with it?

---

I say Al, who does bear as much blame as Reagan, Bush and all the rest of them, because he was the main man who sold us on Nafta. And I know Nafta was the catalyst that brought about this enormous problem.

YouTube - NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993

Remember that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

I called you a racist because you are justifying anger against innocent people who are merely trying to put food on the table like anyone else.
Yes, we should be angry at the corporations and the lawmakers, not at the individuals who are a pawn in this system.
Yes it is against the law! And yes it is unethical!
And sadly, yes we are going through hard times right now, but playing the blame game with people who are not at all to blame is not acceptable to me. I was upset with your post because you were justifying this angry sentiment towards innocent folks who happen to be in the position to work for cheaper wages. Plus some immigrants do NOT work service sector jobs -- some are very highly educated professionals. So to say because one person has a green card, they will be working excliusively in service jobs is completely racist.
Actually now that you bring it up the concept of race is racist! So yes it was wrong for me to call you a racist, I think prejudiced is a better word.
I am glad this discussion is starting to go somewhere.

---

I didnt say because one person has a green card, they will be working exclusively in service jobs. I said nothing of the sort. Okay? Re-read what I said. I also never justified anger against people trying to put food on the table, I justify the anger they have because these illegals, along with these companies who break the law, are cheating the system and cheating law-abiding citizens. It has nothing to do with race, gender, creed, or any other designation.

The rest isn't even worth responding too. Its just so ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

I didnt say because one person has a green card, they will be working exclusively in service jobs. I said nothing of the sort. Okay? Re-read what I said.

---

You implied it by saying you are mad at all immigrants for "taking" your job away, and the jobs of other Americans.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

I also never justified anger against people trying to put food on the table, I justify the anger they have because these illegals,

---

They may or may NOT be illegal -- many immigrants have green cards and are here legally. So please stop referring to all immigrants as illegals that is prejudiced as well.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

along with these companies who break the law, are cheating the system and cheating law-abiding citizens. It has nothing to do with race, gender, creed, or any other designation.

---

Yes it has to do with nationality. You are angry at people because they were born in another country.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

The rest isn't even worth responding too. Its just so ridiculous.

---

No, it is not ridiculous -- you are just too thick-headed to wrap your mind around it.



--------------------------------------

Now that ive responded to that mess I would like to point out that the underlying issue is about empathy. Those with the ability to empathize with others will not have anger toward those people who were born in other countries but have made there way to the USA to work and live the American dream.
Were all of our ancestors not once immigrants of this country?????

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

You implied it by saying you are mad at all immigrants for "taking" your job away, and the jobs of other Americans.


They may or may NOT be illegal -- many immigrants have green cards and are here legally. So please stop referring to all immigrants as illegals that is prejudiced as well.




Yes it has to do with nationality. You are angry at people because they were born in another country.




No, it is not ridiculous -- you are just too thick-headed to wrap your mind around it.



--------------------------------------

Now that ive responded to that mess I would like to point out that the underlying issue is about empathy. Those with the ability to empathize with others will not have anger toward those people who were born in other countries but have made there way to the USA to work and live the American dream.
Were all of our ancestors not once immigrants of this country?????

---

I never said the first alleged statement about being mad at all immigrants for taking my job away. Hey guess what, Im an immigrant!! A legal one at that! I have no problem with legal immigrants. They follow the law and theres nothing at all wrong with that. Stop misinterpreting me. This entire time Ive been on this thread Ive only been talking about illegal immigrants!

So your saying its racist to be angry at people who break the law (by coming here illegally) and undercut the wages of our workforce, and create a slave-like system in our own nation? Im a racist if I think American companies who have decided to establish there business here break American law by hiring illegal immigrants? Im supposedly a racist if I want immigrants to come over to this country the same way my mother did?

Lastly, I am not angry because of their nationality, I am angry because they broke the law! Get that through your thick head!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

So your saying its racist to be angry at people who break the law (by coming here illegally) and undercut the wages of our workforce, and create a slave-like system in our own nation?

---

The biggest problem I have with your reasoning -- and why i have been calling you prejudiced -- is summed up in your own rhetorical question. Yes, I strongly feel that it is wrong to be angry at these said people because I feel that they are NOT the ones "creating a slave-like system" it is the employers, lawmakers, heads of corporations, etc. who create the system of slavery, NOT the slaves! That is like saying slavery exists because the slaves, not the slave-masters.
It is extremely frustrating to me that you keep blaming the innocent party, who are merely pawns in this game.
Don't you see there are people who are making millions of dollars each through this illegal process and they are NOT the immigrants, but the CEO's and business owners who play into this system that are to blame. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

I say Al, who does bear as much blame as Reagan, Bush and all the rest of them, because he was the main man who sold us on Nafta. And I know Nafta was the catalyst that brought about this enormous problem.
Remember that.

---

No matter what "you know" you are wrong and seem to be suffering from some kind of short term historical memory syndrome that has you in blinders.

As I said in my previous reply, deindustrialization and job flight started long before the nineties, by at least two decades. That's what I "remember," and so would anyone else who has paid attention for the last thirty, forty, or more years. And it's in the books for anyone who wasn't alive, or not yet fully conscious then.

So Nafta was, at the time Gore was "selling it", just the latest stage of globalizing economic policies initiated in the seventies by conservative, free market ideologues (in both parts of the duopoly) inspired by the ideas of Milton Friedman and his acolytes.

Remember post-coup 1973 Chile? That was when these policies were being test marketed before they were brought back to the U.S. for implementation.

The fact that you do not acknowledge this, and focus your ire on Gore is indicative of your narrow view and your lack of historical, sociological, theoretical and political knowledge. A lack which you have consistently demonstrated on this board.

You can't just make shit up because it fits your predisposed view of the world. And least you can't if you want anybody who has a clue about these matters to respect your views.

Admo, good point about empathy. By the way, the question of immigration, legal, sans papier, etc. has been ably, vociferously and regularly debated on waccobb.net. There are several long threads to be found. Just use the search engine.

Out for now, didn't read the papers yesterday, gotta catch up,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

No matter what "you know" you are wrong and seem to be suffering from some kind of short term historical memory syndrome that has you in blinders.

As I said in my previous reply, deindustrialization and job flight started long before the nineties, by at least two decades.

So Nafta was, at the time Gore was "selling it", just the latest stage of globalizing economic policies initiated in the seventies by conservative, free market ideologues (in both parts of the duopoly) inspired by the ideas of Milton Friedman and his acolytes.

Remember post-coup 1973 Chile? That was when these policies were being test marketed before they were brought back to the U.S. for implementation.

The fact that you do not acknowledge this, and focus your ire on Gore is indicative of your narrow views and your lack of historical, sociological, theoretical and political knowledge. A lack which you have consistently demonstrated on this board.

You can't just make shit up because it fits your predisposed view of the world. And least you can't if you want anybody who has a clue about these matters to respect your views.

Edmo, good point about empathy. By the way the question of immigration, legal, sans papier, etc. has been ably, vociferously and regularly debated on waccobb.net. There are several long threads to be found. Just use the search engine.

Out for now, didn't read the papers yesterday, gotta catch up,

---

Wait,didn't I say that you were right and others before Clinton/Gore were to blame as well? I just think that Nafta plays a big part in this current problem of globalization and, the loss of our manufacturing base. Whats wrong with that POV? How is that factually wrong? Are you saying that Nafta wasn't a big deal, and that if it weren't for Nafta we would be worse off?

I will admit that I have a special hatred for Man Bear Pig and his sly ways with wording and his snake like salesman tactics. And he used that epic style to sell Nafta to the American public. Same way he did with his fake Global Warming film. Still, I'm not sure where you are coming from? Is it unfair for me to place some blame on Gore, Miles? You act as though I made it sound like Gore is wholly to blame for all of our economic problems.... I did not. I made it clear that I agreed with your analysis of Regan, Bush, etc.... Whats the issue here?

The necessary legislation would be to penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants in the first place.

This issue, to the best of my knowledge, has never been addressed through public policy implementation, at least not nearly as thoroughly as it should be. The reason being is because capitalists, the ruling classes, and the bourgeoisie control almost all legislation (yes, including legislation made by that other bourgeois party, the Democrats).

Fair laws that deal squarely with the problem of illegal immigration would indeed, and very effectively, reduce illegal immigration to a small percentage of what it is today. Penalize the private sector every time they hire an illegal worker. You'll see how quickly things change.

And guess what! You just might see the Right Wing in America start supporting immigrants all of sudden. The Republican Party might see itself in the midst of unending internal conflicts because, after all, "it's the economy, stupid." And business owners don't like being told that they can't make a buck.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

The biggest problem I have with your reasoning -- and why i have been calling you prejudiced -- is summed up in your own rhetorical question. Yes, I strongly feel that it is wrong to be angry at these said people because I feel that they are NOT the ones "creating a slave-like system" it is the employers, lawmakers, heads of corporations, etc. who create the system of slavery, NOT the slaves! That is like saying slavery exists because the slaves, not the slave-masters.
It is extremely frustrating to me that you keep blaming the innocent party, who are merely pawns in this game.
Don't you see there are people who are making millions of dollars each through this illegal process and they are NOT the immigrants, but the CEO's and business owners who play into this system that are to blame. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

---

Sorry, but a (supposedly) quick divergence:
The issue of the BART police officer who shot and killed the young man, Oscar Grant, a couple of years ago in the East Bay has been bothering me deeply. I understand and completely agree with the fact that the officer should be tried in court, as any other person would, for murder. But that is not looking at the entire picture.
What has me boggled is there is an obvious (to me) huge underlying problem: why the heck do BART police need to be armed with lethal weapons? They obviously do not have the training required and I think many would agree that as a transit officer, nonlethal yet very powerful techniques should suffice. If there is a situation that requires guns, the police department should be called.
Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by admo:

The biggest problem I have with your reasoning -- and why i have been calling you prejudiced -- is summed up in your own rhetorical question. Yes, I strongly feel that it is wrong to be angry at these said people because I feel that they are NOT the ones "creating a slave-like system" it is the employers, lawmakers, heads of corporations, etc. who create the system of slavery, NOT the slaves! That is like saying slavery exists because the slaves, not the slave-masters.
It is extremely frustrating to me that you keep blaming the innocent party, who are merely pawns in this game.
Don't you see there are people who are making millions of dollars each through this illegal process and they are NOT the immigrants, but the CEO's and business owners who play into this system that are to blame. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

---

Dude, have I not been blaming the Corporations just as much as you have? I do see CEO's and business owners making millions, if not billions through this illegal process. I see politicians allowing this criminal ring to take place for political reasons. And I see us all (American and other) turning into slaves ourselves partly because of this illegal crime operation and I am going to oppose that.

For most of this thread I laid the blame only on corporations, and only once (in your quoted text) did I say it was justifiable to be angry at someone for breaking the law to take an unfair advantage over another. I don't see a problem with that.

The corporations and government have created this slave like system and used illegals as their pawns. Unfortunately their(illegal immigrants) lawlessness (which is something that law abiding citizens legitimately frown upon) is contributing to this slave system.

In other words, they are not helpless slaves being extracted from their homes and forced to work for pennies. They had to knowingly have broke the law to join in this racket. So they do have some responsibility to take on, and the people do have a right to be mad at others for breaking the law. And I really don't think that is such an extreme position.

I am by no means saying that we need to throw the book at these illegal offenders. But my god, we as a country need to rebuild and focus on ourselves for a while. We need some alone time to get our shit together basically. That means pulling our troops home, settling some debts, sending a few illegal folks home, and ending some of these bad policies that got us here in the first place. Then building up our factories, and creating jobs with green energy technology, or even creating a new transportation system. Anything to get us back on our feet again..... This couldn't come soon enough.

I still 'fail to see why you keep trying to pin the prejudice tail on me...... Get over that bunk shit, and start talking real. Unless you think its prejudice to have a different opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

... I just think that Nafta plays a big part in this current problem of globalization and, the loss of our manufacturing base. Whats wrong with that POV? How is that factually wrong? Are you saying that Nafta wasn't a big deal, and that if it weren't for Nafta we would be worse off?

I will admit that I have a special hatred for Man Bear Pig and his sly ways with wording and his snake like salesman tactics. And he used that epic style to sell Nafta to the American public. Same way he did with his fake Global Warming film. Still, I'm not sure where you are coming from? Is it unfair for me to place some blame on Gore, Miles? ... Whats the issue here?

---

Nafta was bad, but the policies it codified weren't new. You write as if they were. Nafta just expanded market globalization, it didn't start with it, and hasn't ended with it.

When I slam you for lack of historical knowledge, primarily it's because you regularly engage in one of the basic fallacies of understanding this stuff. You reduce complex social phenomena to a single cause, such as; Al, The Corporations, The FED, etc. That's called reductionism and it is a way to obscure the truth and to mislead the naive. Providing simplistic answers to complex questions does not help anyone to understand. And often, when done by those with influence and power, it leads to disasterous policies.

I may think the structure of the economy is very important to what happens to us, who benefits, who suffers. But I don't for a second think economics is the sole cause of everything that happens. It is in and of itself a highly complex system, and it interacts with other complex human systems, such as psychology, social issues (cultures of poverty, racism, exclusionism, anti-intellectualism), cultural differences, and so on.

There is no single simple cause for anything in life. Those who talk/write as if there is, don't impress me. And when they make false claims about the facts, to grind some political axe of theirs, it pisses me off because it's basically a lie, misinformation.

Opinions differ, that's cool. But claiming things that are false, isn't just a matter of opinion.

As for the issue of global warming. That's been visited here in the last year. You were very emphatic and voluble in your views. I wasn't actively involved in that debate, but it's one you lost, and I'm not interested in revisiting it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

The necessary legislation would be to penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants in the first place.

This issue, to the best of my knowledge, has never been addressed through public policy implementation, at least not nearly as thoroughly as it should be...

---

The laws are on the books. They're just not enforced. For the reasons you mention in the rest of your post.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

...But my god, we as a country need to rebuild and focus on ourselves for a while. We need some alone time to get our shit together basically. That means pulling our troops home, settling some debts, sending a few illegal folks home, and ending some of these bad policies that got us here in the first place. Then building up our factories, and creating jobs with green energy technology, or even creating a new transportation system. Anything to get us back on our feet again..... This couldn't come soon enough...

---

On your views of corporations having much of the responsibility for the structure of the American (U.S.) labor market, we're in the same ballpark.

But your position that I've excerpted above, is another example of what I have been criticizing you for today. It shows a very simplistic and naive understanding of the nature of the global economy, and the role of our country in it.

The capitalist marketplace is now global, has been for decades. Isolationism is a non-starter for both foreign and domestic policy. Ain't gonna happen. That fight was lost, that ship has sailed. Too many inter-connected and powerful interests benefit from globalisation for it to go away.

That is as long as there's petroleum to move stuff around. When that runs out, all bets are off and the least of our worries will be undocumented workers taking the jobs of citizens and legal residents. There won't be ANY jobs to take!

"Settling some debts" Yeah, like that's going to happen anytime soon.

"Pulling our troops home" I'm totally with you here. As the quagmire in Afghanistan festers and runs deeper with pus (Ick! I know, but compared to the reality that's a weak characterization of the horror), down the road the powers that be might start a real pullout. But that's not the policy for at least a year or two. And in the mean time the money keeps bleeding out of the system.

I was, and am, part of the anti-war movement, since prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. (actually for much longer, I organized against the Gulf War, in '91-'92) 9/11 should have been addressed by sanctions, blockade and a demand that criminals be turned over to international law.

Unless you're an arms manufacturer, or military services contractor, then you're on the gravy train and everything looks bright for the next eight quarters! That's long range strategic planning in corporate town.

As for Iraq, we broke it. I was very glad to see Saddam taken out, and the break up of the Baath Party. But at what price? The invasion of Iraq, based on lies justifying it, has been an unmitigated disaster overall. Unless you're one of those war profiteers of course. And trying to broker a viable government between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds has proven to be a "problem".

Has everyone read today's article about us abandoning the boodoggle of a water treatment plant in Fallujah, because we're pulling our troops back from combat roles? I am all for pulling them back, they should never have gone in the first place. But the waste of money and Iraqi good will (little as there is) is enormous. SNAFU FUBAR.

"building up our factories and creating jobs" Good luck with that, for the complex reasons I've been hammering you on.

Rebuilding and expanding infrastructure, ala The New Deal and WPA, might be the way to go. I think it is. But that requires new programs funded with deficit spending and the tide is against that lately. Did you follow the G-8 news? Did you read Paul Krugman in yesterday's PD? The deficit hawks are in the drivers seat, for now. Aren't you a deficit hawk, someguy?

There was a good piece in yesterday's NYT's which summarized the immigration debate well. I'm about to go look for it and I'll post a link and the telling quote from the end of the article here. Give me a minute.

The Great Rupture
By PETER S. GOODMAN

Published: July 2, 2010

From the NYT's

The following is from the end of the article:

But in some communities, the downturn has torn at the social fabric, heightening divisions. At a job center in Orange County, Calif., six people gathered early this year to discuss the looming expiration of their unemployment benefits. Most had worked in the white-collar world. One had been a stockbroker with a $250,000 annual income. Another had earned $60,000 a year as an executive assistant at a Jaguar dealership. Several were homeowners. Nearly everyone agreed that illegal immigrants deserved much of the blame for their failure to land another job.
Multimedia

https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...-thumbWide.jpgGraphic
How They’re Hurting







What sorts of jobs had they been seeking?
“I would take a gardening job,” said a 58-year-old woman who had earned $24 an hour as an office manager. “I would clean toilets if I could, but I can’t take that job. Millions of people in California are illegal and they’re taking our jobs.”
A long list of factors went into explaining what had happened to the American economy so that former professionals conversant in spreadsheets and mutual funds were now chagrined to be denied the opportunity to scrub toilets. To a student of macroeconomics, the arrival of illegal immigrants seemed far down the list, somewhere after weak long-term job growth and the near collapse of the financial system.
But to unemployed people trying to divine a cause through the miasmatic haze of their own situations, the presence of illegal immigrants was the explanation they could see most clearly. You could spot them on street corners, waiting for work. You could see them crammed into rental homes, or hear their music blaring from pickup trucks. Joblessness was disorienting. Illegal immigrants formed the only putative cause that lived next door.
And yet to travel the United States in this age of insecurity, with the basic bargain of middle-class life seemingly under assault, is to marvel at the persistence of faith in some larger system; belief that hard work must be rewarded, if only out of common decency.
At a Duane Reade drugstore on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, an African-American cashier in his early 20s working the night shift complained that he and his coworkers had not been told in advance that the chain had decided to sell itself to Walgreen’s. “We didn’t even hear about it until it was on the news,” he said, sounding hurt.
Companies today change hands like poker chips at a casino, in response to millionaire investment bankers indulging words like “synergy.” Low-wage workers are generally no harder to acquire or unload than a crate of paper towels. Yet despite all that, despite economic dysfunction and narrow corporate interests, this young man was aggrieved because he had assumed something else: an almost familial relationship with his employer, a bond of mutual concern.
It was hard to know whether to feel sad in the face of this sentiment —pained that a pawn in a larger drama saw himself as important enough to warrant inclusion — or perhaps inspired that even at the lowest depths of the American workforce, faith in a shared enterprise remains.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Nafta was bad, but the policies it codified weren't new. You write as if they were. Nafta just expanded market globalization, it didn't start with it, and hasn't ended with it.

When I slam you for lack of historical knowledge, primarily it's because you regularly engage in one of the basic fallacies of understanding this stuff. You reduce complex social phenomena to a single cause, such as; Al, The Corporations, The FED, etc. That's called reductionism and it is a way to obscure the truth and to mislead the naive. Providing simplistic answers to complex questions does not help anyone to understand. And often, when done by those with influence and power, it leads to disasterous policies.

---

Your first point I conceded to right away... So why are you saying that I said Al Gore started globalization?

Umm dude.... Are you listening to me? I just told you that Al Gore and Nafta weren't the sole cause of this globalization! Didn't I? Twice now? Why are you getting your panties in a knot over nothing? Is this your alleged humiliating and devastating retort you've bragged about? I hope not, because this is nothing but a strawman argument and not even something we should be discussing because I resolved this two posts ago.

When do I reduce complex social issues into one cause of our problems? Don't I make a wide variety of posts on many different subjects on a daily basis here at Wacco? Specifically when have I placed all the blame on corporations, the fed, or any other institution like that? When I endorse ending the FED, I dont claim it would solve all of our economic issues, but in my opinion, we would be a far better nation without it! You know, things like Nafta also contribute massively to this economic situation we find ourselves in. Am I being reductionist in saying that Nafta and the FED are hindrances to our economic prosperity? How about my attack on government regulations which keep small farmers, for example, from becoming prosperous? Does that fall under the umbrella of reductionism as well? Oh and I could bring up excessive taxation and the war!!!! Oh yeah, I never talk about that...... Your right Miles, I just blame it all on the FED. Or was it the corporations? I forget.

With a little more practice at twisting peoples words around, you could give Robert Gibbs a run for his money...... It would probably pay nicely. :wink: But seriously dude, your pissing me off with your lies. Cut it out.

Someguy,

My responses accusing you of reductionism were about your original posts on this thread, and your subsequent denials, and the "Al" slam on another thread. If one of my replies, is to a more recent post, I have excerpted relevant quotes to indicate what I'm talking about.

You have a habit of only responding to what you want to respond to. You do not answer many, if any, of the questions I ask you.

Pardon me if I can't take discussing these matters with you seriously, given your pattern of selective response and ignoring issues that I raise. Perhaps this is just a function of the limitations of online debate. And the lack of sufficient time in the day. But it comes off as evasion and cherry picking.

If you are not sure of what I'm referring to in the previous paragraph, re-read your early posts, and my replies to them. I tried to be as clear as I can without doing a point by point, quote by quote, refutation. Nobody is paying me to do this (nor you I suspect). I didn't go to law school, by choice, and my philosophy studies took place years ago. This is a loose discussion in a public arena, not a seminar in textual exegesis.

In some sense of the matter I'm not really arguing with you, that's a futile project. I'm trying to demonstrate to others the holes in your logic and the mistatements of provable fact that you consistently make.

I have thought that one way to give you the benefit of the doubt, is to chalk up our disagreements to differences in perspective and emphasis. But that's an easy out.

I'm not willing give that to someone who disseminates anti-semitic propaganda (an issue you never addressed, and an example of one of the things I'm calling you on in this post, i.e. not addressing significant points and not answering clear, distinct questions) and who bases their world view on small, hamstrung government, free market, Libertarian nonsense.

(Rest assured readers, I don't want any more government than is absolutely necessary. But someguy and I will probably never agree on the definition of "absolutely necessary government.")

As we've both stated, we disagree. I'm not really concerned about that.

I am concerned about historical accuracy as a basis for understanding the problems that face us, everybody. Significant parts of what you claim are obstacles to that project.

Rest assured, if I was targetting you with a devastating insult, you would know it. The limits of civil discourse here, and from my own sense of decorum, prevent me from doing so. At least not yet!


Done for now, I'm gonna finish clearing the waccobb traffic and shut down this box for the evening.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Someguy,

My responses accusing you of reductionism were about your original posts on this thread, and your subsequent denials, and the "Al" slam on another thread. If one of my replies, is to a more recent post, I have excerpted relevant quotes to indicate what I'm talking about.

You have a habit of only responding to what you want to respond to. You do not answer many, if any, of the questions I ask you.

Pardon me if I can't take discussing these matters with you seriously, given your pattern of selective response and ignoring issues that I raise. Perhaps this is just a function of the limitations of online debate. And the lack of sufficient time in the day. But it comes off as evasion and cherry picking.

If you are not sure of what I'm referring to in the previous paragraph, re-read your early posts, and my replies to them. I tried to be as clear as I can without doing a point by point, quote by quote, refutation. Nobody is paying me to do this (nor you I suspect). I didn't go to law school, by choice, and my philosophy studies took place years ago. This is a loose discussion in a public arena, not a seminar in textual exegesis.

In some sense of the matter I'm not really arguing with you, that's a futile project. I'm trying to demonstrate to others the holes in your logic and the mistatements of provable fact that you consistently make.

I have thought that one way to give you the benefit of the doubt, is to chalk up our disagreements to differences in perspective and emphasis. But that's an easy out.

I'm not willing give that to someone who disseminates anti-semitic propaganda (an issue you never addressed, and an example of one of the things I'm calling you on in this post, i.e. not addressing significant points and not answering clear, distinct questions) and who bases their world view on small, hamstrung government, free market, Libertarian nonsense.

(Rest assured readers, I don't want any more government than is absolutely necessary. But someguy and I will probably never agree on the definition of "absolutely necessary government.")

As we've both stated, we disagree. I'm not really concerned about that.

I am concerned about historical accuracy as a basis for understanding the problems that face us, everybody. Significant parts of what you claim are obstacles to that project.

Rest assured, if I was targetting you with a devastating insult, you would know it. The limits of civil discourse here, and from my own sense of decorum, prevent me from doing so. At least not yet!


Done for now, I'm gonna finish clearing the waccobb traffic and shut down this box for the evening.

---

Man id love to just talk it up with you in person. That way we could just discuss each point as they arise. Yes I did not address everything you stated, Im not cherry picking, but merely putting in as much effort as I want. Much like you focusing on things that only interest you, I focused on the parts of the post that I felt important to address. If you have any pressing concerns and want to question me about them please do so in the next post. I will be sure to answer them. Just make them clear.

I really want to address this made up anti-semitic claim youve got going on.... Where is that coming from? That Zombie video? Just because one clip in that video showed a guy that "looked" according to you, jewish when they mentioned global bankers, Im an anti-Semite? Are you serious? For your knowledge I never made that connection when I watched the video two times before posting.... And so if the guy in the picture were, arabic, would I then be a racist? Or if he were a lady, would I be sexist? I don't think you have sufficient information to make a claim such as that about me. Saying that I am disseminating anti-semitic propaganda by posting a video about how Americans are brainwashed into going with whatever they are told, doesn;t add up with me. And if you knew me, youd know I wasn;t anti-semitic, or racist, or anything like that.

You havent proven any holes in my logic as of yet. Your entire ranting is baseless as I already stated sooooo many times that globalization did start before Gore sold us Nafta. I expressed my opinions on Nafta and Gore and made clear my position, which you are distorting for god knows what reason.

Your basically saying that Nafta didn't have any real impact on our current economic status, right? You say that I am factually wrong for making that claim.... What else can I say? I think your wrong. And I think your misconstruing the entire situation, or else acting very deceptively.

Go ahead and ask away Miles... Ill answer anything you like.

I just wanted to add this. How could you think Im anti-semitic when you just told me the other day that a member here at wacco told you they met me in person and said I was a good guy? That person by the way had to have been Barry (as he is the only waccobb member Ive ever met in the real world), who just so happens to be jewish. If I were anti-semitic would I really be sitting down for tea and a lovely chit chat with a jew, a person you think I hate? Also, I'll add that I think Barry is a cool guy and not someone that I hate for any reason. I have mad respect for the dude in charge, not because of what religion or race he is, but for who he is, and I have expressed that on several occasions here. Like I said earlier in this thread maybe we should as a nation reconsider how we throw around words like racist, or anti-semite...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Someguy,


You have a habit of only responding to what you want to respond to. You do not answer many, if any, of the questions I ask you.

Pardon me if I can't take discussing these matters with you seriously, given your pattern of selective response and ignoring issues that I raise. Perhaps this is just a function of the limitations of online debate. And the lack of sufficient time in the day. But it comes off as evasion and cherry picking.

---

Hey Miles,

You are quick to accuse me of not responding to your quesitons as though you always answer all of mine.... Well how about this entire post that you ignored?

"Wait,didn't I say that you were right and others before Clinton/Gore were to blame as well? I just think that Nafta plays a big part in this current problem of globalization and, the loss of our manufacturing base. Whats wrong with that POV? How is that factually wrong? Are you saying that Nafta wasn't a big deal, and that if it weren't for Nafta we would be worse off?

I will admit that I have a special hatred for Man Bear Pig and his sly ways with wording and his snake like salesman tactics. And he used that epic style to sell Nafta to the American public. Same way he did with his fake Global Warming film. Still, I'm not sure where you are coming from? Is it unfair for me to place some blame on Gore, Miles? You act as though I made it sound like Gore is wholly to blame for all of our economic problems.... I did not. I made it clear that I agreed with your analysis of Regan, Bush, etc.... Whats the issue here?"

There are several questions in that post, none of which you answered. Why are you being so terribly hypocritical and obnoxious? I have to point out this apparent hypocrisy because I actually am inclined to think that you buy your own bullshit and think you are better than me and that your lies will be overlooked. Good luck with that, as I will call you on your lies in public like I should have that one time I private messaged you and you weaseled your way out of looking like weasel in public.....

Wow it amazes me these people are so ignorant that they blame immigrants for "taking their jobs away". The way I see it employers gave the jobs to the immigrants, that is who they need to be angry at.

The story you shared about the young man who worked at the drug store in Brooklyn really hits home -- I am in my early 20's and I was just laid-off and I too felt very insulted that I had no warning and that I was not treated with much respect when I was let go. Maybe it is a generational thing? Or maybe he and I are just still too naive to see that "the powers that be" don't give a rat's ass about us.
I guess the problem, at least for me, is that I worked my butt off for my employer, always putting their interests before my own even. And in the end, this is how they show they care?
As far as I can tell we are all just pawns in the game and the kings and queens will reap all the benefits and "trickle" it back down to us eventually. Correct me if I am wrong, but that doesn't sound like much of a fun game to me...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

The Great Rupture
By PETER S. GOODMAN

Published: July 2, 2010

From the NYT's

The following is from the end of the article:

But in some communities, the downturn has torn at the social fabric, heightening divisions. At a job center in Orange County, Calif., six people gathered early this year to discuss the looming expiration of their unemployment benefits. Most had worked in the white-collar world. One had been a stockbroker with a $250,000 annual income. Another had earned $60,000 a year as an executive assistant at a Jaguar dealership. Several were homeowners. Nearly everyone agreed that illegal immigrants deserved much of the blame for their failure to land another job.
Multimedia

https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...-thumbWide.jpgGraphic
How They’re Hurting







What sorts of jobs had they been seeking?
“I would take a gardening job,” said a 58-year-old woman who had earned $24 an hour as an office manager. “I would clean toilets if I could, but I can’t take that job. Millions of people in California are illegal and they’re taking our jobs.”
A long list of factors went into explaining what had happened to the American economy so that former professionals conversant in spreadsheets and mutual funds were now chagrined to be denied the opportunity to scrub toilets. To a student of macroeconomics, the arrival of illegal immigrants seemed far down the list, somewhere after weak long-term job growth and the near collapse of the financial system.
But to unemployed people trying to divine a cause through the miasmatic haze of their own situations, the presence of illegal immigrants was the explanation they could see most clearly. You could spot them on street corners, waiting for work. You could see them crammed into rental homes, or hear their music blaring from pickup trucks. Joblessness was disorienting. Illegal immigrants formed the only putative cause that lived next door.
And yet to travel the United States in this age of insecurity, with the basic bargain of middle-class life seemingly under assault, is to marvel at the persistence of faith in some larger system; belief that hard work must be rewarded, if only out of common decency.
At a Duane Reade drugstore on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, an African-American cashier in his early 20s working the night shift complained that he and his coworkers had not been told in advance that the chain had decided to sell itself to Walgreen’s. “We didn’t even hear about it until it was on the news,” he said, sounding hurt.
Companies today change hands like poker chips at a casino, in response to millionaire investment bankers indulging words like “synergy.” Low-wage workers are generally no harder to acquire or unload than a crate of paper towels. Yet despite all that, despite economic dysfunction and narrow corporate interests, this young man was aggrieved because he had assumed something else: an almost familial relationship with his employer, a bond of mutual concern.
It was hard to know whether to feel sad in the face of this sentiment —pained that a pawn in a larger drama saw himself as important enough to warrant inclusion — or perhaps inspired that even at the lowest depths of the American workforce, faith in a shared enterprise remains.

---

Admo,

Your description of how you felt about being laid off is a very good summary of the reasons why I have been a strong critic of the capitalist free market economic system since my late teens, early twenties. I'm fifty-four now, and haven't found many reasons to change my mind.

Changes in the structure of the labor market for the last thirty years have made any sense of idea of employer concern for or loyalty towards employees, pretty much non-existent. Not that it was all that great before those changes.

On the other hand I recognize the power and flexibility of market economic systems, so I'm not someone who calls for their total abolition.


Someguy,

I didn't call you an anti-semite. I said you distributed propaganda with anti-semitic content, the two images in the zombie video. If you had a habit of doing that, I would conclude you were anti-semitic. But you haven't and so I assume you just didn't see what I saw. I don't know you well, so I wouldn't conclude you were anti-semitic, or racist in any way, until I knew more.

That wasn't why I brought it up. Even if you didn't see it the way I did, once I criticized you for it, if I were you, I would have responded. It's a pretty serious issue. You didn't, that led me to conclude that you're more interested in disseminating your Paulist / Right Libertarian media, than in participating in discussions here.


You're right, I don't answer all of your questions. Who has the time? And many of your questions are leading and based upon such flimsy premises that I just don't bother. I figure an educated, perceptive reader, can see through them, without comment from me.


In one of your last two posts you ask pointedly if I don't agree that NAFTA was bad for American (U.S.) and Mexican workers. Of course it was. But it wasn't the beginning event in the history of screwing us, it wasn't the last event in that history. It was just one of the most notorious, recent events. Focusing on it, and its promoters, obscures the important issue.

What is wrong with our society is not reducible to individual actors, and discrete periods of history and the regimes from those periods. What is wrong is an inherited system of assumptions, practices, and institutions, which do not serve everyone, and privilege the rights of the few, the powerful and the wealthy over the rights and needs of everyone else.

The players change, the names of the programs and regimes change, but it's the same old shit, over and over again.

Your pattern of blaming individuals, powerful and influential as they may have been, or are now, obscures all that. Focusing on discrete government programs or policies, to the exclusion of the long term interests behind those policies is also obscurantist. They're what certain theorists from an oft-villified but still influential school of Social Theory call, mystification. Those are the big lies, inadvertent or intentional is irrelevant, that I'm calling you on.


Do I think I'm better than you? In what sense? Smarter? Better informed? Ethically? I don't think any of that other than I might claim to be better informed. I've seen nothing you shared here that I haven't known about, most of it for years. Have I ever put anything on this board that was new to you?

I try not to think in terms of better, worse. I'm an egalitarian, anti-elitist, I think everyone has value. And I resist quantifying our differences. If I come off as supercilious, it is not my intent. I like to write, comment, discuss, debate, and I have been a reader since eight years old, so my vocabulary is fairly extensive. The more academic and theoretically obscure words I know, I try to avoid using, especially in a popular forum such as this one. I copy edit my posts. I look up words that I'm not sure I have spelled correctly. If that comes off as arrogant, I'm not sure what I can do about that. I'm also not sure would I want to, even if I knew what the problem was!


As for whether or not you acknowledge the full history of globalization policies, removal of trade restraints, and their effect on the workers of our country and Mexico? I never said you didn't. What I said was, you started out writing as if it was all Al Gore's fault. Implying that NAFTA, as an example of globalization, started with the Clinton administration and ended with it.

That is factually incorrect. I said so. You didn't admit that (that you were reducing the problem to a single agent, and period in our history) you simply asserted that what you said didn't imply that you were attributing every change in trade policy, to Gore/Clinton. But you did. Then you corrected yourself.

I wasn't criticizing your self-corrections, I was criticizing your pattern of inflamatory, false claims. You can't take that back, no matter what you say afterwards. The only way to address the problem would be to stop your pattern of making false, villifying and alarmist statements.

By the way, I'm not accusing you of intentionally lieing. I'm sure you believe what you distribute here is genuine. I'm telling you that in several significant instances, that you're wrong. Wrong as in mistaken, ill-informed, naive, misguided.

Now, I know in arguments, that often someone is accused of speaking falsely, when they make a statement, because that statement is interpreted to also contradict its opposite and for leaving out important facts that should have been stated. I checked myself to see if I had fallen into that fallacy. I don't think I did. I focused on the specific things you've said here, and why they are not true, and how they're obfuscatory.

I'm not going to spend my time refuting every detail of what you put out here. What you've seen in the last day or so is as close as I'll come. And continuing this tit for tat discussion is not useful. Both of us have had our say on the matters involved. We're obviously not going to reach agreement.

I'll leave your little digs aside. Pissing matches just stink up the place.

Except to say, the pattern of your refutation, your argument, fits the logical structure of, "Same to you, but more of it!"

Been there, done that,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

You didn't admit that (that you were reducing the problem to a single agent, and period in our history) you simply asserted that what you said didn't imply that you were attributing every change in trade policy, to Gore/Clinton. But you did. Then you corrected yourself. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Garamond][SIZE=4]I wasn't criticizing your self-corrections, I was criticizing your pattern of inflamatory, false claims. \

---

Ahh yes, with three off the cuff words (thanks Al baby) I reduced an entire global economic crisis to one single person..... Maybe you could view it like that. To me, I was just getting in a shot at man bear pig. I speedily corrected the situation in the next post when you pointed it out... Big frigging deal!

All your ranting and flailing over three little words....? Wow! Good for you. Keep fighting that righteous battle Miles.

But maybe you should point out more of these alleged "consistent inflammatory and false claims" of mine. Hopefully you choose some real statements to take issue with in the future, not just some off the cuff joke about a douchie liar.

Now that I've had a good little while to think about your anti-semitic claims I have one thing that I want to bring up to you Miles. I'd love to do it in a private message (for the same reasons I wanted to before) but you have made it clear not to...

I re-read your thoughts this morning on that Zombie video I posted a few days back just to refresh my memory as to what you stated about it being anti-semitic propaganda. Frankly I was quite disturbed at what you had to say, and I am shocked that I didn't notice this the first time I read through your post.

Lets start by saying, that video was not in any way anti-semitic propaganda. It made no mention of Jewish people, and the subject matter was of a completely different nature. Yet when you saw the image of a shadowy figure, the one whom you described as being " a big nosed, bushy haired, swarthy caricature of a face", you immediately thought Jew! Doesn't that bother you? It doesn't matter if you were repulsed, or giddy about it, you apparently have the perception that Jewish people are "big nosed, bushy haired, swarthy" people, and that bugs the shit out of me. I'm sure it really pisses off Jewish people who don't want to be characterized in such a despicable manner.

Now mind you, I do not take the issue of racism lightly. Not at all. I would never throw these kinds of words at people without much meditation, and after thinking about this for some time now Ive got to say that if your knee jerk reaction to seeing an ugly character, like the one you described, as being Jewish, I think you may be anti-semitic. You may not hate Jews or even think unkindly of them, but for you to label that character as Jewish is totally illogical and perpetuates a racist stereotype that has obviously been embedded in your conditioning. I will not allow that to go unchecked, so check yourself.

This is not an attack but a genuine call for you to wake up and think deeply about what was said here in this post and more importantly of yourself. If someone were to point this out to me, I sure as hell would.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

...Lets start by saying, that video was not in any way anti-semitic propaganda. It made no mention of Jewish people, and the subject matter was of a completely different nature. Yet when you saw the image of a shadowy figure, the one whom you described as being " a big nosed, bushy haired, swarthy caricature of a face", you immediately thought Jew! Doesn't that bother you? It doesn't matter if you were repulsed, or giddy about it, you apparently have the perception that Jewish people are "big nosed, bushy haired, swarthy" people, and that bugs the shit out of me. I'm sure it really pisses off Jewish people who don't want to be characterized in such a despicable manner...

---

Someguy,

You've been pressing me to provide a specific example of the kinds of things you say, and promote, here that I find so irritating and mendacious (whether conscious or not on your part).

Thanks for providing a fresh example!

If you're not familiar with the coded images and phrases that have been used over the last several hundred years (probably much longer) to express hatred for Jews, well, all I can say is your education in important matters of historical and social justice is sorely lacking. Of course you've been proving that consistently in your participation here. That's why I've taken you to task so vociferously in the past few days.

As for off board private conversations, I make it pretty clear to anyone who emails me directly, that I prefer to debate and discuss in public, here. Just not enough time or interest for me to carry on side conversations.

Back to your devastating analysis of my heretofore unrealized racism, your argument is tantamount to accusing someone who spots racist imagery in blackface, step and fetch it vaudeville shows of the pre-Civil Rights era, a hater of Black people. Surely only someone with those prejudices would see that message in a bit of harmless fun!

I made it clear what was anti-semitic in the two images and where and when those images have been used to express anti-semitism.

I'm done with you, fool. From now on my plan is to respond to a few of your more egregious assertions with single word retorts. That's all your stubborn ignorance deserves.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

From now on my plan is to respond to a few of your more egregious assertions with single word retorts. [/SIZE][/FONT]

---

Good plan. Put up your barriers and retreat from any inner analysis. Live in constant denial and use your alleged intellect to weasel out of taking any true critique to heart.

Neither of those two things looked like anti-Jewish to me.... and one of them was shown not even in the context of international banking (an industry you seem to stereotype as completely Jewish). And how you could envision some arms holding puppet strings over a sign that says international banking as the person holding the strings as being Jewish is asinine to me. I looked up Nazi Jewish propaganda and couldn't find one image similar to those in the video. So I do not know where you are coming from when you spout that BS.

You can save your single word retorts for people who care to hear them, I do not. I don't listen to people who refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings, and I don't take kindly to people who make racist presumptions about people. None of those pictures were even close to a portrait of black face.... It was just a person.... Like I said before, if it were a woman, Id be sexist, if it were an Arab, Id be racist...... So can we only show pictures of people without any defining characteristics at all when we make media nowadays?

I spoke about this issue with several people I know and showed them all of the evidence. Nobody thought Jew when they saw those pictures flash across the screen. Everybody thought you were at least a weirdo, or possibly anti-semitic, for coming to that conclusion. I still don't feel I did you wrong and I stand by my assertion that you are at least somewhat anti-semitic in my eyes for stereotyping those pictures the way you did.