• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Posts posted by muff528

  1. gowlerk

    quoting Wendy, "Trump has a long history of seeing more potential or merit in people he can identify with (white, European ancestry) than people he can't identify with (non-white). Not that he's incapable of seeing the merit, just that his assumptions are different when judging, and there's far less benefit of doubt.
    That's not the racism of lynching or "step off the sidewalk when you see me, boy," but it's still racism."

    Wendy P. Yes, maybe you're right Wendy. Many people don't see racism for what it is. White nationalist don't consider themselves to be racist at all. They just want a separate "homeland" with no brown people (except maybe servants with no citizenship). But don't call them racists, that's insulting.

    The truth is, we all have a preference for people who are more like ourselves. We are all racist. It's what we do with that and how we treat others that matters.

    Kind of agree with both of these statements. But, where we might disagree is that I don't really lump Trump in with the "white nationalists". (I don't know whether you're implying that he is one or not, even though I generally agree with the generic content your post).

    Hmmmm ....degrees of racism. Maybe just another way to describe cultural differences.

  2. Phil1111

    ******Cuba a shithole? Well, it does have an average life expectancy about 4 months less than America's. In Canada we get about 24 months more than either of you. Define shithole.

    A shithole is where a natural disaster completely and utterly decimates a country that cannot be restored because their criminal regime has stolen that country's wealth and left their people with nothing to rebuild. No infrastructure, no housing, no resources.

    Plenty of others.

    Trump Administration: Puerto Rico Has Enough Money and Doesn't Need More Aid

    Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico four months ago, and recovery has been slow. Power is still out in large swaths of the island, affecting over a million people, and some rural areas may not have power restored until the 2018 hurricane season. Infrastructure, industry, and agriculture have all been devastated. But according to the Trump administration, Puerto Rico is fine. Or at least, Puerto Rico is well off that the administration is deliberately withholding aid...

    And of course, Puerto Rico has no friends in this White House. It's reported that Trump meant for his "shithole" comments to play well for his base, and if the president thinks that way behind closed doors, it's always possible that he believes that actually helping Puerto Rico would undercut his credibility with white nationalists. It's also just possible he still doesn't know that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Regardless, it seems clear that the U.S. government has no intention of giving Puerto Rico aid if they can't get it all back or make a quick buck.

    Puerto Rico’s $123 Billion Bankruptcy Is the Cost of U.S. Colonialism
    "Civil society groups contend that the plunder of the Puerto Rican people through predatory and even illegal bond deals that island politicians concocted together with top Wall Street firms will now be exposed.

    Amazingly, the 23-page petition that the federal government’s own financial control board filed in U.S. District Court in San Juan reached the exact same conclusion that Puerto Rico’s former Gov. Alejandro García Padilla reached back in June 2015 — that the island’s debt is “not payable.”

    You have defined the US government and the state of America as a shit***e.

    Agree that P.R. is a great example of an epic failure resulting from many decades of leftist/progressive control and corruption at the highest levels of government. From the governors, to the mayors of major cities, to Senate leadership/membership, etc.. ...most of these elected officials have, over the years, rotated through multiple high-level offices, ensuring their personal grip on power/money. You want to see a real divide between rich and poor in the US? ...look right here. Again, corruption by top government officials has left the territory with a failing, outdated infrastructure that will require years for recovery. The example you included from my post is right on point for Puerto Rico, too. Not as dire as Haiti, but bad enough none-the-less. Yes, this disaster exposes that corruption and the mess that is left to be cleaned up by others, much like similar local (and not so local) corruption was brought into daylight in New Orleans post Katrina. The US is certainly not immune from these pockets of corruption. And the lefties certainly enjoy no monopoly.

    We're probably not getting the full story on why certain relief funds to P.R. are being withheld. I think the FBI is investigating allegations of corruption and misappropriation by local officials of even the relief funds and aid that have already arrived on the island. I know that power companies from my region have pretty much thrown their hands up and evacuated the island in frustration. Complete lack of help or direction from local authorities. Even FEMA is having difficulty working with them.

    "The road goes on forever and the party never ends".

  3. gowlerk

    .....But the whole point of the issue is that Trump and friends do not think that any, or very few of these desperate people should be allowed in. Why?

    I think he wants (as do I) a so-called "merit-based" immigration system. I don't think he is so much against some folks immigrating here as much as he is in favor of any immigrant candidates meeting the needs of the country. ... like just about any other country's approach to immigration. I agree that the way he put it gave his opponents an easy attack point, but I don't believe he meant it in a racial or "hateful" way. It's just that those happen to be the nations from which we are receiving the greatest influx of unskilled people. Again, I have no problem processing incoming refugees whom we might subject to other rules than immigrants. There has to be an ordered way to assimilate incoming folks that does not completely disrupt our resources or our ability to absorb them. Not just for the good of the country, but also for the good of the refugees. Also, I think that if a country, shithole or not, is causing a large refugee migration into this country, our relationship with that nation should reflect that. That was not quite the thought I wanted to get across, but ....bedtime.

  4. gowlerk

    Cuba a shithole? Well, it does have an average life expectancy about 4 months less than America's. In Canada we get about 24 months more than either of you. Define shithole.

    A shithole is a place where people strap pieces of foam, seat cushions from old Desotos, plywood, and tree limbs together with bailing wire and hemp rope to risk death and escape with their families to that other shithole 90 miles to the north. These are folks who have had other family members murdered by their country's heros (who have their images painted on the sides of buildings and are worshipped by American leftists and anarchists), or have been sent to rot in their shithole prisons.

    A shithole is where a natural disaster completely and utterly decimates a country that cannot be restored because their criminal regime has stolen that country's wealth and left their people with nothing to rebuild. No infrastructure, no housing, no resources.

    A shithole is a place that sits over one of the richest oil reserves in the world yet doesn't have a meaningful economy and most of its population lives in fear and poverty. Another kleptocracy.

    A shithole is a country with a loudmouth puppet "leader" who has given over defacto control of that country to criminal cartels (including members of their federal police) who, themselves, are at war with each other, leaving the citizenry caught in the middle. It's a place where this is better than their homeland.

    A shithole is a country that (despite a 100% vaccination rate), causes its citizens to feel compelled to ship their children, unaccompanied, 1000 miles on top of freight trains, across hostile territory to "dreamland".

    Plenty of others.

  5. gowlerk

    He clearly said he wanted more Norwegians and less people from shitholes. Do you not think he was advocating a more "whites only" policy? The funny thing is that the more he gets his way the less people from affluent counties will want to go there. But poor dark skinned people will still be beating down the doors.

    I think anything he says will be interpreted through a listeners political filter, one way or the other. I, personally, don't see a strictly racial component to his statement, rather a reference to what might motivate a person to emigrate from a given country and what we might require from an immigrant. I think he wants an immigration policy more like, say, Canada's or Australia's or Mexico's or maybe even Norway's. As I've said in another thread, I have no problem accepting political or oppressed refugees as long as we treat the refugee-producing country accordingly, we did with Cuba until they finally wore us down and won. BTW, IMO, they are still a shithole.

  6. gowlerk

    Lots of people have used the term shithole. That is not even close to the same as having the POTUS declaring that he doesn't want to allow people from shithole countries to live in the US. Because it is obvious to all the he does not consider them good enough to be Americans. Some Americans agree with him. Most don't. As an non American, my opinion is that the more Americans agree with him, the more America will be a shithole country itself.

    Well, I don't have the same "take" on his intent WRT immigration as some others. But, if we do gain "shithole" status, that may, in itself, inhibit immigration. May be better than a wall.

  7. SkyDekker

    ******Who called the place of shithole?

    Some folks right here on this forum. .......waaaaay before the trumpster was pres.

    Which doesn't mean much does it?

    Wasn't meant to "mean" anything. Just answering a question.


    I mean lots of people can say stuff on here, but it sounds rather differently coming from the president of the US.

    Sounds the same to me. "Shithole" sounds like "shithole" or "shit hole" no matter who says it. Someone saying a place is a shithole doesn't make that place a shithole. Not any more than saying a place is not a shithole makes that place not a shithole. Only the place has control over that.


    I mean, posters on here could say US military are knuckle dragging murderers, but it really wouldn't mean much. Now imagine the president of the US saying the same thing.

    I think only our Secretary of State said that once. But he was a Presidential candidate, so, does that count?


    But then, I am sure you would be honest enough to come on here and say how it didn't matter because a member of said it first.

    It really doesn't matter! A shithole is a shithole no matter who says it. My point really was that a few of the folks here that called the country a shithole are the same folks who are condemning, or at least lambasting, Trump for saying it.

    But, I don't think the term "shithole" is defined by specific parameters which might apply to a place or country. I suppose everyone has a different sense of what that might mean. I''ll be honest enough to say that as a person who has not visited many of the countries that I might consider shitholes, my opinion is based only on what I can know about that country through what I'm told or what I can see happening. Sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes I'm right.

  8. One of Dad's war stories from when he was stationed in England was about the first time he heard the term "potted meat". They were used to (read: "tired of") a regular diet of Spam. They found out that some place in town was serving "potted meat", so a few of them headed for what they though would be a welcome change. They were disappointed when they found that it was just another name for Spam.

  9. Only thing they'll find on my skeleton is a chip off of one side of my nose bridge caused by a shortened pool stick. Happened at The Cave near Casa Loma in Tempe, AZ around 1972 or 73. Quarter tequila night. Also, a bridge in my mouth and maybe some stress cracks in my skull and face from bicycle accidents. No injuries at all from time spent in "hazardous" sports ...boat racing or skydiving, or from rolling a full-sized 69 Chevy station wagon.

  10. My very first airliner trip - Summer 1971 from Tampa to LA. First leg was a Delta flight from Tampa to Atlanta on a DC-9. Then non-stop from Atlanta to LA on a Pan Am 747. I remember all the Pan Am personnel left the airplane and were replaced by a Delta crew in Atlanta. Seems that the Pan Am flight arrived from Europe, was "leased" by Delta for the domestic leg as a Delta flight, and then proceeded to Asia as a Pan Am flight after switching crews again in Los Angeles.

    I remember seeing the very rigid wing of the DC-9. By comparison, I could swear the 747 wing was flapping. Amazing airplane. Very spacious and not really very many passengers on that trip.

  11. Not a joke for the thread, but several years ago Hurricane Charlie passed through Central Florida just east of us. I looked out the window during the height of the storm and noticed a bird standing on the ground just next to my car tire, not a feather ruffled! This was the storm that destroyed the hangar at Lake Wales.

  12. jakee

    ***Not sure what claim you think I made and retracted, unless you can pull some kind of "claim" out of "So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her".

    Of course that's a fucking claim. It's in there plain as day.

    Here's a thought, if you don't mean it, don't say it:|

    I already said that if what I wrote is considered a "claim", then I retract it. It's down a little further in the same post you pulled my above quote. I realize I shouldn't have said "no one". I'll amend it to say "a less than optimal number of folks" or "not quite as many folks" or "only a few right-wing nazis who are skipping finals" or "at least 100 but maybe only half a roomful, whichever is smaller". Moot point, anyway. She's not speaking on May 2. But if she's offered May 1, she should take it.

  13. billvon

    >I have no doubt that any nationally-known figure could draw well over 100 people
    >on a moments notice.

    OK, so you retract that claim. Fair enough.

    >IMO, it still doesn't get the school off the hook for attempted 1st Amendment suppression.

    "They won't let me have the date/venue I want" is not grounds for a claim of . . . well, anything.

    If I go to Stanford and demand that they let me speak on New Years Eve at Tressider, and they refuse - are they suppressing my First Amendment rights?

    Not sure what claim you think I made and retracted, unless you can pull some kind of "claim" out of "So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her". Not sure I can even discern the point you're making, unless you really think they are honoring her First Amendment rights, and their contract, by "allowing" her to make her speech in some kind of moronic "free speech zone" of UCB's choice, that would keep her and the riff-raff who would hear her separated from the other, enlightened students and other protesters who otherwise would uncontrollably commit violent, criminal acts. So, yes, I retract the statement that "no one would hear her". I'm sure that if they put her in a broom closet, I would lose that stupid bet because at least one or two folks would show up.

    But she, and the Conservative student group, and UCB did agree, to a venue and date. The sponsoring group jumped through the same hoops and filled out the same paperwork and kissed the same asses that are required for events by the school's more erudite and acceptable mobs. The school then reneged and stated that they will not honor that commitment. But then after a little blowback, they "magnanimously" offered to let her have a much less desirable date at an "undisclosed" venue. Seems to fit their pattern of inhibiting or attenuating speech that doesn't conform to the ideology of the collective. I'd tell them to pack sand, too.

    I'm guessing that even the so-called "lilberal-progressives" that took over the school in the 1960s are rolling over in their graves over this. Either that, or they, too, were/are a bunch of hypocrites.

  14. lummy


    The latest I heard is that UCB has rescheduled her speech to May 2 between 1 and 3 pm, at an "undisclosed location". My understanding is that this is during "...'dead week,' when students aren't even in class".

    Not true, it's called RRR week. In a ntushell, faculty are not allowed to introduce new material the week before finals. The time is to be used for review of already presented materials. Just because it's review week doesn't mean you don't have to attend the class.

    Ah, thanks for clarification. Info came from The Hollywood Reporter (whoever that is) site, quoting the lawyer: "Associate vice chancellor Nils Gilman 'grudgingly offered to allow the event from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2 — during 'dead-week,' when students are not even in class,' wrote Harmeet Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group in a letter to Berkeley interim vice chancellor of student affairs Stephen Sutton." Actually, I was only looking for the latest decision by UCB when I found this. It had the latest date/time at the time.

  15. wmw999


    while the bakery's actions *might* be interpreted by some as a violation of the gay couple's civil rights (I do not agree)

    If the Oregon law is clear that discrimination is illegal, even by private businesses, when it's based on sexual orientation as well as based on color etc, what's the basis for your disagreement? I can understand disagreeing with the law, but the interpretation is pretty straightforward to me.

    Wendy P.

    I do agree that the Oregon law is clear that discrimination is illegal when etc, etc.... ...and that the baker is violating that law.

    I disagree that the baker is violating civil rights by refusing to bake the cake. The baker cannot prevent the couple from getting a cake from anyone else. He may be violating Oregon law, but he is not violating the couple's civil rights. (IMO) Only the Government has the power to violate someone's civil rights without retribution. An example would be the Government's punishment of a baker for refusing to provide a cake for an event which opposes the baker's religious beliefs and 1st Amendment freedoms.

    Just to be clear, I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone they choose. I do believe that Government has no business endorsing, advocating, denying, licensing or having any interest in anyone's marriage of any kind. That includes, tax ramifications, health care, inheritance rules, hospital or prison visitation rules, public housing, blue laws, and any other benefit or penalty that could be associated with any "marriage".

  16. I have no doubt that any nationally-known figure could draw well over 100 people on a moments notice. But, I'd be very surprised if she accepts the May 2 date given the hoopla and the statements by the lawyer. Could be wrong, though. IMO, it still doesn't get the school off the hook for attempted 1st Amendment suppression.