Who do you want in 2008?

[quote name='usickenme']Of Jon Stewart...

I think you would have to be an extremely immature thinker to not wonder "what if the other side is correct?" I do it often and it always lead me back to being a liberal.[/quote]

Funny because it might just lead him to become a conservative.

[quote name='usickenme'] However this peak into JS thought process is only one narrow (I can't stress this enough) view into the why the Middle East could change. [/quote]

Of course its narrow! Its not smarmy left wing defeatism!

[quote name='usickenme'] Futhermore it ignored the fact that this change could have come about a variety of smarter, less costly ways.[/quote]

Really? We get to wait another 2,000 years for them to wake up? And in the mean time we should accept Islamic fundamentalists flying planes into buildings?

Change is happening because of the Iraqi elections. Those happened because Bush invaded Iraq.

[quote name='usickenme'] It's funny that the right-wingers like Stewart all of the sudden. .[/QUOTE]

Not even close.

CTL
 
Damn, CTL you are a simpleton. You probably think communism fell solely because of Reagan too.

Additionally you are woefully ignorant (and patronizing) about democracy in Iraq. We don't you just come out and say "those brown folks need the US of A to kick their asses into democracy because they are too stupid to do it themselves".

It would be more honest.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']No offense but I think those texts have been invented by sociologists so that they can be continuosly employed. My mother was a social worker for a state for children and families. Utterly inept. If I was a child who was beaten and starved I would take my chances being pimped on the street before I allowed those idiots to F up my life.

People who want to succeed will.

Its not an issue that really concerns me. It concerns me to the extent my salary is frittered away to support them and thats about it.[/quote]

I'm only singling out this point due to time constraints. I have a 20-page report due tuesday, and it turns out that the lovely folks at SPSS want to run a two-day all-day-long workshop in operating CATI labs on Monday and Tuesday. So, I'm fucked for time; alas, this thread moved on from here anyway.

Saying that inequality is fabricated for sociologists' continued employment is like saying that the temperature is fabricated for weatherpersons' continued employment; it is neither accurate nor relevant to the issue of inequality.

The simple experiment is this: if you grow up in a single-parent black family in a poor neighborhood, what are your chances of upward mobility? What if you grow up in a dual-income white family with two lawyers, attending private school, and having your parents' pay for standardized test prep? The fact is that upward mobility is easier for some than it is for others, and it is highly salient upon class and race lines.

If race was irrelevant, we'd find 12-13% representation among any measure of income; we'd find 12-13% representation in prisons; we'd find 12-13% representation in politics. This is not the case, though; simply put, race matters, and race mixed with low class = improbably poor life chances for a "successful outcome."

It isn't a matter of being beaten and starved; it's a matter of structural inequality, covert racism, and the economic incentives to be discriminatory (e.g., to retain favorable and more numerous white clients in a suburb, you refrain from selling a home to a black family).


Because I believe in punishment for punishments sake.
Click to expand...

I'll ask about this also: what kind of outcome do you want for convicts? If you're concerned about your tax dollars, you want them suckling from the government teet for the shortest possible period of time, and released prepared to behave according to legal social norms (since, in terms of cost savings, allowing for recidivism is quite a tax burden, given that 67% return within three years). I don't imagine that you're simply in favor of punishment by itself; that renders convicts incapable of reentering society with the tools needed to succeed (i.e., avoid crime and recidivism). Such an outlook (punishment by itself is sufficient) necessarily implies that you have no intention of releasing convicts back into society; thus, we must pay for incarceration from entry until death - I don't imagine you're a big fan of that.

myke.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Additionally you are woefully ignorant (and patronizing) about democracy in Iraq. We don't you just come out and say "those brown folks need the US of A to kick their asses into democracy because they are too stupid to do it themselves".

It would be more honest.[/QUOTE]

Really? As someone who has been to Iraq and served there durung the election I suspect I have a much better idea what is going on there than you.

CTL
 
Assuming you are telling the truth (which is a stretch considering how quickly you garnered credentials when the discussion warranted them and how you paint Iraq as all sunshine and rainbows)...

it only makes your ignorance of the country that much more appalling. Did you pick up anything besides "brown people are stupid"?? Maybe it helps you sleep at night but it is wrong.

by the way..I would "like" to thank you for your service but I know you wouldn't accept it anyway. I'll save it for the people I know personally.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']So much for "Who do you want in 2008." :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'll say. As much as I hate to agree with Kayden, he's right about how these threads fall apart.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Assuming you are telling the truth (which is a stretch considering how quickly you garnered credentials when the discussion warranted them and how you paint Iraq as all sunshine and rainbows)...

it only makes your ignorance of the country that much more appalling. Did you pick up anything besides "brown people are stupid"?? Maybe it helps you sleep at night but it is wrong.

by the way..I would "like" to thank you for your service but I know you wouldn't accept it anyway. I'll save it for the people I know personally.[/QUOTE]

Ask Quackzilla if I was there. He had me send him an email and verified the IP.

I didn't paint Iraq as sunshine and rainbows, that was a spoof from Team America.

I was unaware that I commented "brown people are stupid". Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster. Please show me where I made that comment.

As for thanking me, don't put it in quotes as it appears to be insincere.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Really? We get to wait another 2,000 years for them to wake up? And in the mean time we should accept Islamic fundamentalists flying planes into buildings?
[/QUOTE]

2,000 years? They were (not counting the chinese) the dominant intellectual and military force at one point.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']2,000 years? They were (not counting the chinese) the dominant intellectual and military force at one point.[/QUOTE]

And thats my point. We get to wait ANOTHER 2K years before they wake up again.

CTL
 
Though if you support "punishment for punishments sake" stop taking my tax dollars to do it. I don't want to give a penny to an incarceration system whose goal isn't to prevent future offences, but is instead just to punish.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though if you support "punishment for punishments sake" stop taking my tax dollars to do it. I don't want to give a penny to an incarceration system whose goal isn't to prevent future offences, but is instead just to punish.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a point? Or are you just here to pick a comment that I made and just continue to post them and try to challenge them?

Because I have things to do today.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And thats my point. We get to wait ANOTHER 2K years before they wake up again.

CTL[/QUOTE]


Read Iraq's history in THIS century, before a US installed Saddam, and the please edit your ignorance from this thread. You are making a fool of yourself.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And thats my point. We get to wait ANOTHER 2K years before they wake up again.

CTL[/QUOTE]

LOL.

We're headed in the same direction with 10 commandments in the law courts and creationism in the school system. It's your new WWJD government

yeeehawwwww
 
[quote name='Zenithian Legend']Well I dunno about you guys, but if he runs, Arnie has my vote[/QUOTE]

He'd have mine too...too bad it probably wont happen :sad:
 
[quote name='Zenithian Legend']Well I dunno about you guys, but if he runs, Arnie has my vote[/QUOTE]

Nice to see an on-topic post. :)
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Even if it disregards the job requirements for President. :D[/QUOTE]

:D

Terminator in 2008!

Wasn't there discussion about changing the rule about being born in the US to run for President?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']:D

Terminator in 2008!

Wasn't there discussion about changing the rule about being born in the US to run for President?[/QUOTE]

There was talk but I doubt anythign will be done about it, especially when it is so blatantly obvious that it would be just to benefit one person, Arnold. Hell, he's losing support in Kah-lee-fornia right now.

I would be amused if the same people who grouse about Hillary not being from NY would support ammending the Constitution to let Arnold run.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Wasn't there discussion about changing the rule about being born in the US to run for President?[/QUOTE]

My gut reaction would be to be against that, but it's kind of unfair if you're born during your parents' trip to Europe or something. I think that if you have 40 or 50 years of continuous US citizenship you should be eligable.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']My gut reaction would be to be against that, but it's kind of unfair if you're born during your parents' trip to Europe or something. I think that if you have 40 or 50 years of continuous US citizenship you should be eligable.[/QUOTE]

If your parents have US citizenship, then so do you regardless of what country you're born in as I understand it. It may be different if they are living permanently abroad.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If your parents have US citizenship, then so do you regardless of what country you're born in as I understand it. It may be different if they are living permanently abroad.[/QUOTE]
It isn't different if they live abroad at least for military people. I'm sure it is the same for everybody
 
[quote name='jlarlee']It isn't different if they live abroad at least for military people. I'm sure it is the same for everybody[/QUOTE]

Looks like it's still not all that clear, but this seems to make most sense:

Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of framers of the Constitution sat, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" This strongly suggests that the framers understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired at birth (whether or not that birth had taken place on U.S. soil).


This is in regards to No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President in the constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-born-citizen
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If your parents have US citizenship, then so do you regardless of what country you're born in as I understand it. It may be different if they are living permanently abroad.[/QUOTE]

This is correct. Roughly, there are two types of "citizenships", by blood and by land.

By blood two American citizens who have a child in a third country such as Mexico or Germany would produce a child who is an American citizen. I have never heard that the duration of their stay abroad impacts the cilds citizenship.

Or by land where a pregnant illegal imigrant flops over the border and squeezes out a kid also produces a child who is an American citizen.

CTL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top