Between this and the First Friday event at JLINSNIDER which starts around when this one is ending, it looks like a great Friday night for cheapskates!
Wow, IP. Throw a couple names out there, and your point is proven? Find one seeming inconsistency in what Fish Pimp wrote to use to throw the baby out with the bathwater? (And anyway, you bring up a single "daddy," when the point was that there weren't "many." On a nationwide scale, the statement would allow for a number of Barry Gordys.) The point isn't about particulars. It's about aggregates. It's about percentages of the population. And as someone who likes to think he actually lives in the world, rather than some fairytale version of it where all people are colorblind and possessed of an "equal shot" at success, I can tell you institutional racism is very much alive, even if we have made great strides towards combating the overt racism of school districts closing rather than serving blacks, or seperate water fountains. You write well, and I get the impression you're a reasonably thoughtful person. Additionally, I imagine you're probably a decent guy/gal in your interactions with people of all races, which is great. But Mr Moredock's point is that there are still vestiges of a time (some of these vestiges are living and breathing, and still voting in the Senate until recently) when that wasn't the case. Such things do not disappear overnight.
And it is worth noting that our president is the son of an African (not African-American) and a white woman. I'm not sure he would have been so easy to elect if he had come from a traditionally African-American background, and seemed...you know..."blacker." All this is to say that I agree with parts of what most posters have written: we HAVE made great strides, but we STILL have a ways to go, if we want to be a truly free and equal-opportunity society. It's not hard to imagine segregationists making only slightly different versions of many of the arguments you make now, secure that blacks were their own worst enemy, and whites had already bent over backwards to make up for the evils of slavery. So I respectfully disagree with you, but appreciate your point of view and read your arguments with interest and an open mind.
Mr. Farrow, on the other hand, writes that, "when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation." What "half of the people" are you even talking about? Are you proposing that somebody in the 49th percentile is counting on the 51st percentile to "take care of" them? Have YOU spent any time on Reid Street? I have. If that's your idea of getting "taken care of," you need to wake up and realize that you're probably on the losing end of all the right-wing talking points you're swallowing hook, line, and sinker. And, incidentally, study after study show that nobody ever "stops working" when they have to pay higher taxes to "take care of" their fellow Americans. It's all relative, and they still want success (or at least more than their neighbor), even if they only keep a smaller percentage of the amount they make beyond the median income. There is, simply, no data to back up your assertion.
Please at least tell me you're not a Christian, though I suspect you are. Because, if you are, you're not only ignorant about how much is "half" and a couple standard deviations away from what most people would consider as a reasonable standard of what "care" is. You're also completely in the dark about what your lord and savior suffered on the cross for.
The "institution of marriage" isn't under assault.
Will the homophobes so worried about the "institution" of marriage ever be able to give a non-religious reason why it shouldn't be available to everybody? Nobody wants to change marriage, we just want everybody to have the chance to suffer it equally.
"If you ask most Christians why they oppose health care, it is not because they enjoy seeing their fellow man suffer. It is because they have seen how government programs like Obamacare ultimately fail the intended beneficiaries, resulting in the erosion of freedom for their fellow man, and a bankrupting of the federal government."
How do "government programs like Obamacare ultimately fail the intended beneficiaries?" By keeping them from starving, like the SNAP progam does? By providing their children with an education, so they at least have an outside chance at being successful in life? Yeah, I know government programs aren't perfect, but I'm pretty sure most poor people would much rather have a flawed program than no food or education.
Ever read Ezekiel, Yuengling?
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it."
Good thing you've got some heathens who actually care about their neighbors to keep God from "removing" you. I'm constantly appalled that there can be so many "Christians" who try to defend their own selfish greed and covetousness with cherry-picked lines from the Bible, usually out-of-context, that they learned from TV.
Pretty sure Jesus would advise you to sell your big-screen and buy dinner for the bum you look down on, not admonish the bum for having the temerity to presume that he, too, should not have to starve to death.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper