Social Engineering-No white construction workers allowed!!!

By kipman

Date 01-24-2009 16:07

At what point would these new tradespeople be considered skilled, and therefore run off the job?

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 01-25-2009 03:03

I am pretty sure there would be a "doubble standard" to protect them.

By raftergwelding (*****)

Date 01-27-2009 15:04

So let them get trained and skilled and then they can support us while we sit on our butts like they did. The way i see it they owe it us. Then we can drive a 50,000.00 escalade while going to the grocery store to shop with food stamps and get free medical,dental and optical. It's out turn right. Nope not me I'd rather work for it makes me feel better about myself.

By RioCampo (***)

Date 01-30-2009 13:12

deleted

By DONKEY PUNCH Date 02-05-2009 05:22

I agree 100% let THEM work while I sit at home and draw my obama check every week and complain because no one gave me a chance and talk about how no one knows what its like to b a white man and ever time someone famous uses the C word that being cracker the media can blow it up then they can apolgize throw some money 2 a black charity and every thing is cool in my opinion 97% OF the black afro whatever is corect 2 call them that voted 4 obama just voted 4 him because he was black and the rest were democrats who would vote 4 sadom if he was running for president they don't care about any thing but democrats and dosent matter what they stand 4 I know some people who up until the election were part of a certain group of people who hang out up in the hills here in mo and they hate every one who isn't white but they voted 4 obama jus cause he's democrat and I'm not picking on jus demos I don't like either party

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 01-27-2009 15:11 Edited 01-27-2009 15:13

Racism, its getting better for many in this country........Now all minorities in the usa have a chance to become true americans, thats right now the ones who were discriminated against have a chance to change things. now they all have the opertunity to be racist, and protected by the government while doing it.
Its so messed up this next comment could be considered racist by some.
Im white and Proud of it.
Never forget who the GREATEST generation was made up of.
MDK

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 01-27-2009 16:15

"Greatest" generation. I think that would be relative to a certain point of view. Every generation thinks that they are the greatest generation ever. My fathers generation tolerated segregation. His father's generation tolerated lynchings. His father's father's generation tolerated slavery. And the previous generations brought slavery into this country. I am sure that all of those generations thought that they were doing the right thing. But even "the right thing" is subject to relativism.

The tragedy of 9/11 were "the right thing" to sum. The terrorists were heros, to sum. The firefighters that rushed into the destroyed buildings, were heros to sum. Everything is relative. I think that the greatest generation is yet to come.

I recently worked with a guy that would definately fit into the racial stereotype that is often featured in some of these posts, although it is never really made absolute. This guy had the beat up POS Cadillac that he thought was new off the show room floor. He complained about his "baby mama" and child support. He kept records of all the racism that was going on in the shop and everything was because "I'm black".

So, I told him that after November 4, when Barack Obama becomes president I don't want to hear any more of that bullshyte again. (I never had to because I was laid off Oct. 2). Because regardless of ANYONES opinion, Obama is a hell of a roll model. IMHO the only way that he was able to survive during the time of the "GREATEST" generation was to be born in Hawai'i. With Obama's assention to the second highest office in the world he has brought about a historical turning point were the stereotypes are either shattered or proven correct although they will never be affirmed or dispelled across the board.

I am sure if we all had the propensity to become doctors, lawyers or engineers then we would do it. But there are many speed bumps that throw people off track. Some are born in less than nurturing repressed environments that hamper peoples' future. It is now doubt that the Greatest Generation circumvented many people of all races. And there is no doubt that many people like Obama, Powell, Oprah and Dr. Daniel Hale Williams were capable of seeing through the animosity of others and the self loathing that many people have, and created their own future.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-27-2009 17:00

[quote]Because regardless of ANYONES opinion, Obama is a hell of a roll model.[/quote]

Byron that is strictly a matter of opinion, and cannot be formed by evidence of his way up the ladder to be President. The facts about this man are only formed by the media and what you have heard them tell you about him. Let's start with ..... The records of his birth and childhood are all sealed up for no one to "know" factually whether or not this individual is elegibile to be President according to the US Constitution, so at best you and I have to assume that these facts are indeed true as they have been submitted to us by the media. Let me ask you, did you know who Barrack Obama was 5 years ago?....I know that I didn't, never heard of this community organizer before in my life until the media got wind of him and started pumping him up.

I will say that he is to be truely admired for being able to come out of the Illinois political corruption machine and remain spotless in the media's eye when all of his associates, many of which, have gone to prison or are on their way.

By hogan

Date 01-27-2009 17:20

jwright650,
Here is a link to snoops on the question of Obama's qualification, in regard to birth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-27-2009 18:39

The link in snopes which claims to verify this is a link to Annenberg Political Fact Check.....Where have we heard that name before? The same the Annenberg Foundation project where Obama served as Chairman and worked with the famous Bill Ayers. The organization who claims to have propelled Obama from a lawyer into a political figure.

Conflict of interest? You bet...I think they should be ashamed for calling themselves a "fact checker" when they leave out the fact that Obama's long form was sealed along with all of his childhood, and college records which would factually verify Obama's eligibility, records from here and in the US, Kenya and Indonesia, like the other candidates had to provide....

Here is Obama's short form(note the lack of verifiable fact checking evidence...ie name of hospital where he was born)

http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/images/28.jpg

here is John McCain's long form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McCain_Certificate_of_Birth.jpg

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 01-27-2009 17:20

Bryon,

Relativisim is a cancer in the realm of moral discussion.

You said:
"My fathers generation tolerated segregation. His father's generation tolerated lynchings. His father's father's generation tolerated slavery. And the previous generations brought slavery into this country. I am sure that all of those generations thought that they were doing the right thing. But even "the right thing" is subject to relativism."

There were women and men in your fathers generation that did not tolerate segrigation because it is wrong

There were women and men in your father's father's generation that did not tolerate lynchings because they are wrong

There were women and men in the previous generations that did not tolerate slavery... because it is wrong.

There is nothing at all relative about mistreatment of people.

Absolutes do exist... They can be adhered to or jettisoned, but they are timeless and unchanging, because they are not subjet to mens influences.

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 18:08

I agree with Lawrence. The relativism argument is a typical liberal ploy that essentially results in the idea that every act, every behavior is acceptable. Even mass murder. You just have to see it from the mass murderer's point of view. Or the rapists. Of course those who parrot the relativism argument seem to be oblivious to the insidious and political hidden agenda of many who make the argument in intellectual circles. That agenda being the destruction of the US (or the west as a whole)and an establishment of a world government along socialist and progressive lines (or worse-if thats possible). I believe we've heard similar arguments in here.
These progressive liberal intellectuals are so paranoid and panicky over the idea of religious authority (religious authority-the church-doesn't exactly have a squeeky clean history)(and when I speak of religious authority in the positive context I ain't talkin about a church)that they stupidly throw the baby out with the bathwater making claims that an ethics can be built without a religious authority along humanist lines, and yet they never seem to be able to do so.
The truth is simple. YOU CANNOT BUILD AN UNNASSAILABLE ETHICS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF A POWER BEYOND HUMANKIND. And the logic is simple. Without an authority beyond humankind, who then judges amongst ethical alternatives. Nobody can. And therefore, the stink of relativism. The greatest minds the world has ever known have tried for centuries to find the answer to this conundrum, and failed.
The problem now becomes that the most despicable among us uses our failure to prove the existence of a God, our gullible ignorance, and intellectual subterfuge, to try and convince us that mass murder is acceptable.
I ain't buyin it.

By hogan

Date 01-27-2009 19:51

js55,
This I have to question. Could you expand on your earlier statement :

These progressive liberal intellectuals are so paranoid and panicky over the idea of religious authority (religious authority-the church-doesn't exactly have a squeeky clean history)(and when I speak of religious authority in the positive context I ain't talkin about a church)

You say your not talking about church, what are you talking about?

And you go on to state that:

"The truth is simple. YOU CANNOT BUILD AN UNNASSAILABLE ETHICS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF A POWER BEYOND HUMANKIND. And the logic is simple. Without an authority beyond humankind, who then judges amongst ethical alternatives. Nobody can. "

Could you also explain this further as well?
I'm just trying to fully understand your viewpoint. Thanks

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 22:15

As I was writing the post I realized there might be some confusion over my use of the term authority. So I clarified, if somewhat clumsily. Religious authority is looked upon as the church by many. My intent was an idea consistent with what we think of as God. That is the authority that I intended.
That an unassailable ethic cannot be established without some overarching judge (for example a God) of its value is an undeniable philosophical and logical fact.
If Neitzche destroyed God, so to speak, we have ever since spiralled into relativism. A relativism that says that if someone commits mass murder they haven't done anything wrong, (or at least we can't determine they have done anything wrong), we just don't understand them.
No matter what ethic may be established another ethic counter to it can be established that is just as logically valid. And it is also a fact that the great majority of intellectuals that have abandoned the idea of religious authority for humanistic relativism are liberal in their political thinking, and are the grandchildren of Nietzchean relativism.
Religious authority may have given us the Inquisition, but relativism gave us Neitzches superman and the Nazi's.

By HgTX

Date 01-27-2009 22:16

"That an unassailable ethic cannot be established without some overarching judge (for example a God) of its value is an undeniable philosophical and logical fact. "

Um, no.

And the Nazis were not atheists, nor were they relativists.

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 22:39 Edited 01-27-2009 22:46

Didn't say they were. But the fact is Hitler built his Supreme Race idea upon the Superman idea of Neitzche. And Neitzche WAS a relativist. Neitzche dumped God and replaced him with the Superman. Hitler dumped the superman and replaced him with his own distorted version of such.
And by simply saying "Um no' cannot deny the fact that ain't nobody done it yet, though the greatest minds in the world have spent lifetimes trying(I suppose the most successful example was Kants Catagorical Imperative-looking remarkably like the much older Golden Rule-and even it doesn't hold up under scrutiny). And for the most part in the great majority of modern philosophy the effort has been pretty much abandoned as futile,though some brilliant minds are still trying. Opposing ethics always seem to pop up. Efforts to establish that unassailable ethic end up just turning into targets.

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 22:51

Well, at least we ain't talkin politics. Sorta. :)
Once we drift into philosophy then we can all disagree.

By hogan

Date 01-27-2009 22:53

You assume that there is a god, or higher authority to judge us. Additionally, from what I can interpret from your posting, you need religion to have valid ethics. Is this correct?

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 23:11 Edited 01-27-2009 23:14

I do.
Though not to judge.
And, I'm not arguing you need God for a valid ethic. Even a blind squirrel will find nuts. You need a God to establish that your ethic can maintain its validity in the face of a directly opposed ethic.

Either there is a God, or some such type of idea. And an unassailable ethics can be built out of its truth because it is after all God, the foundation of all, or some such idea.
Or there is no God and there is no unassailable ethics. This is essentially the world of science where all is just little particles (or strings or twistors or whatever name is en vogue at this time) running about spinning and twisting and bumping into each other. In which case it is now incumbant upon the mind of man (generically speaking of course-and essentially just more bumping particles) to build and ethic, though if all is just space dust it fails me how even the effort can be logically justified as anything more than a hobby, and in which case the mind of a different man (different particles still bumping) can build a different ethic exposing the original effort as just that. So much space dust bumping around.
Now if my choice is to choose an ethic based upon and idea of God or an idea of bumping particles, I gotta say, God is looking a lot better to me. :)

By hogan

Date 01-28-2009 14:55

"In which case it is now incumbant upon the mind of man (generically speaking of course-and essentially just more bumping particles) to build and ethic, though if all is just space dust it fails me how even the effort can be logically justified as anything more than a hobby, and in which case the mind of a different man (different particles still bumping) can build a different ethic exposing the original effort as just that."

But I don't see this as unassailable ethics. As I am questioning it. My perspective of your argument is it is a hobby as well. I'm in your golden rule group of goofs. Again from my perspective they both have there qualities, but neither are above scrutiny.

By js55

Date 01-28-2009 15:51

The argument from God is a different kind of scrutiny I think. The argument from a belief in its existence. Once the existence is a given (and this is of course the crux from this standpoint)then an ethic estalblished by 'inspiration', or, 'the word of God' etc., is unassailable.
An argument for an ethic from the mind of man does not have an 'authority' outside of the mind of man to determine its veracity. And so you end up with relativism where even mass murder can be justified.
However, from a logical standpoint, if God says "Thou shalt not commit murder". Then by God literally, thou shalt not commit murder. It doesn't say, thou shalt not commit murder unless you wish to make a point about how pissed you are at the innocent victims government. This ethic is logically unassailable. The only way it can be attacked is to either deny the existence of God (liberal philosphers and progressives favorite approach) or deny the veracity of the 'inspriation' (the favorite approach of competing religions).
But in that context, I find it fascinating that liberals will use the Relativism argument to attack religious ethics in order to defend events such a 911, perpetrated by self professed muslims (and I mean SELF professed), and yet Islam accepts the Hebrew religion as valid, considering itself an adjunct, so to speak, and the final word.
In other words, we pretend we are enlightened (we are so fricken modern with our science and self professed simian ancestery) and then make an argument that the supposed perpetrators could not, and would not, make themselves.
Or better, we pretend we are defending with relativism those who would deny the very relativism we are using to defend them with. Talk about twisted logic.
If it wasn't so deadly serious, it would be hilarious.

By js55

Date 01-28-2009 16:00

If I were to put it simply, the only way that an ethic can have an unassailable foundation is if there is something bigger to all this. Something bigger is what gives meaning to all this and you have to have meaning to have ethics.
If there is nothing bigger then all you have is a logical construct that can been turned upon itself.
The problem with something bigger is of course proving it. Which can't be done. But I prefer to live in a world that attempts to find something bigger, that attempts to find meaning, that wishes to believe in something bigger, than a world who's very foundation ultimately says "Anything Goes".

By hogan

Date 01-28-2009 20:10

Js55,
It appears to me that you are skipping over A and continuing on to B. You state your god as giving you unassailable ethics. I'm sure that Jews and Muslims would argue that point as well as me. You have based your entire argument on one assumption. That logic falls in on it's self. Additionally your are talking in extremes. I would not agree that a murder has ethics based on the golden rule(I have always referred to it as empathy). So while that argument is valid, it is not typical. Do you see Jews offering there first born as a burnt offering to god? Why? Because that ethic would not be tolerated. Flawed divine ethics.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-29-2009 04:14

I agree! I never did like that so called "Chaos Theory" either! ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 01-27-2009 20:54

Yes, js, please elaborate.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-29-2009 04:11

My question is which Church are you referring to? Last time I checked there were many categories of Christian Houses of Worship, and they DID NOT all agree with a majority of each other's so called "Doctrines of faith." There are also many religions that have long standing disagreements too... Is this what you were referring to when you used the word "Church?"

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 01-29-2009 13:59

My context of Church was intended to be generic in that "Church" has not exactly had a squeeky clean history when it comes to the assertion of authority. The most predominant of which is of course the long history of the Catholic church. But most 'church's' have difficulty resisting abuses of power. Some are much better at it than others.
I wanted to distinguish the idea of 'church' authority form that of a 'Gods' authority.
The crux of my argument was a context of logic, the problems of "verifying" a Gods' authority is of course notorious and a long discussion and of itself.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 01-29-2009 14:23

The thing about that is the authority of God comes from the Church. The Church is what maintains and teaches the truth in the word of God and by that the authority of God is expressed. The problem we have in the world is that every faction of every religion has a different teaching, which leads to animosity of others. The problem with religion in America is that people think that they can create their own version of God, as if religion is a consumer good. They will pick and choose which aspects suit their purpose and ignore the Word as a whole. One kind find a "church" that will makes them feel good about themselves regardless of their "condition".

By js55

Date 01-29-2009 17:52

I would argue the authority of God actually came from a thousand thousand mystics that have populated the history of religion from the beginning. Take Jesus for example(though I have to say I am still not completely convinced he actually existed-this oughta stir up some debate). There was no church until decades after his death when men wishing to seize power and stamp out competing factions of other men established one. Jesus never established one. In fact, I would argue that he thought it futile if not in direct opposition. Some have argued earlier but evidence is scant and interpreted to satisfy their preconceived notions. The problem, which we can agree upon is what a 'church' does with it after the fact. When you look at the inspiration of the great religious leaders of the world what they are actually reported to have said is astonishingly similar. With some notable exceptions, and recognition of the fact that little of what they said was understood or written down, for good reason, (Zen has something to say about this, in silence). And has undergone shameless revision.
Wars have been fought not over what these great leaders said or stood for, but over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Its we, bumbling men after the fact that fracture it up.
In my opinion there is no church that teaches the truth. No book that has it written down. They endoctrinate to enlarge congregations in order to increase their influence. In other words. Power.
Ultimately my argument has not been that a religious orientation towards establishing an ethic is not without its problems. But some compass is better than the anything goes of relativism. We are certainly stuck with having to rely on our ' flawed mind of man' to help find our way, but we go to far if we think it can be the ultimate solution.
Our modern relativists in their abhorance of religious zeal have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 01-29-2009 21:26

I guess that is why its called Faith.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-30-2009 22:04

Thanks for the clarification - my friend! ;) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 01-27-2009 18:18 Edited 01-27-2009 18:28

Bryon,
Your fawning worship in that last paragraph is almost embarrassing to read. You don't really believe that do you?