Giving Dan a Black Eye

New here? Just want to let everyone know a little about yourself? Here is a nice place to start.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Rooster-SPQR, Spinny Spamkiller

Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:55 pm

It is with a great sense of satisfaction I write this little note….
I've been waiting to respond since I started listening to your production ---- "Are white people evil". Since then I've been stewing (or festering if you like). Enjoy my triad. :drunk:

Imagine you're walking in the woods. As your walking you encounter a sight that Ripely himself wouldn't believe. A pit viper has sunk its fangs into its own tail. You stop, you stare. Rubbing your eyes your mind struggles to accept what you're seeing. With each second the adder gets more upset, the pain, the fear and the anger cause it bite down even harder and pump even more venom into itself.

You're so good at using scenarios to tease out your point. But your didactic scenarios for the most part are like "white people humor". White people humor? Yeah jokes that start out with "what if…." while black (or any repressed people in general) humor starts out with "what is" funny. Along these lines here comes my "didactic scenario". Pose this to your audience (2 or 3 times a year) and see if "ben" still sick afterward (he'd be dead). :suspicious:

Imagine that Obama took some new laws (go with it, grant me this, to make the scenario complete). This new law forbids white people from voting. What would happen? Imagine the next law he passed is that only black people can own property. Let's pass over the immediate responses. Passing over whether or not whites responses to this would be justified (unless you'd like). Let's say that the laws sticks for the next 400 years. In what condition would whites be? Go ahead Mr. Hardcore History let's hear you spend an hour or two teasing this out. :ohsnapsign:

You see you so called "Libertarians" "small government" "states rights" WHITE people are the venom the adder is our lovely country. While you call out the obvious that Obama signs into power laws that he "promises" that himself won't use as irresponsible and etc. When the likes of states rights/small government put forth plans and ideals that make your lives comfy but conveniently are blinded to what the implications for the rest of us. Your excuse is that no no no we'd never overturn Civil Rights laws….no you just built the bridge for those that would effectively do the same…. and I'm not talking about sitting at some stupid counter I talking access to credit, proper education and health services. You'd want what those good folks in Pakistan have a separate system for the poor while those that have influence and money have their own private ambulances and those without are sentenced to public ambulances. As horrid as that sounds you guys would do this right down racial lines. No no no not you personally no, of course not, but that is the system you put in place all in the name of "libertarianism". :badday:

So then the more you push for small government while glossing over the concerns (concerns based on historical tract records and recent social experiments - and not mere speculative theories) then you worsen things by causing more venom/government to get into the system. :congratssign:

I wrote this little diatribe because you hit all the right points concerning the media (of which you are it's spawn, a fellow adder) on its willful blindness to the most harrowing issues - only you have an added characteristic a whole other problem - "so-called" colour blindness. At every mention of your dream of a government so small you drown it in the bathtub, present how you would stop your solutions from hurting the rest of us -- besides touting "the market will correct it". :puhleeze:

So for me you get "props" for coming close. But while you use keen analysis at the hypocrisy of Obama and decrying the absurdity of Santorums prospect of open warfare with Iran. You willfully or uncaringly skip over the toxicity of the historical use of "small government" "states rights" and the like to keep an entire population of citizens based on race hundreds of years behind. :stop:

You get props but it is like being chased by Freddy across a busy highway, just being missed by a semi truck yourself you turn around to catch his face as he sees it but you know that he knows that he doesn't have enough time to move out of the way before the lorry smashes him to bits. :wave:


Your assignment -

"Ben. Its been 400 years since whites could own property or have equal rights. Did that financial foundation prevent their children from prospering"? "In that 400 years - how come the 'free market' never forced equality at any level?"

"Ben? If it's wrong for Obama to put in laws that maybe, probably, in the future, expose the USA as a whole to a serious risks of civil rights degradation then what of 'Libertarian/states rights/small government' initiatives that have already proven to be toxic to 'equal citizen' of the USA"?

If you can see the problem of the media, government and etc when it affects your kind how is it that you cant see that your solution exposes the blacks to affects that they have experienced before all in the name of states rights etc. Of course it will be packaged under a different name but the net effect would be the same.
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby robin » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:26 pm

Welcome to the community. Are you referring to the history episode on Magellan? Just curious how long you have been festering. I am also not sure I would be giving "Ben" assignments until the next HH episode is out. He might get the idea that he can procrastinate on finishing the episode.

"BEN" GET BACK TO WORK. . . NOW!
Please Use the Dan Carlin Amazon Search Window!
http://www.dancarlin.com/amazon
User avatar
robin
The Boy Wonder
 
Posts: 3902
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby exposno1 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:32 pm

robin wrote:"BEN" GET BACK TO WORK. . . NOW!

You okay, man? :unsure:



:lol:


. . . oh, and welcome, Doondi . . . you may want to loosen the grip, a bit! :)
User avatar
exposno1
Mooderator
 
Posts: 5102
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Quasigriz » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:33 pm

Welcome aboard!


the little secret is that Obama doesn't care about you or your liberties no matter what color your skin is.

Both Republicans and Democrats are only concerned with wealth and power. Both people marginalize the populace; catering to the wealthy while supressing the poor. Bey both have there seperate reasons for doing so.

Good luck getting anyone else to post on this thread. :hug:
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score
User avatar
Quasigriz
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6555
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:59 am
Location: The 50th State

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Dan » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:43 pm

Well, Ben told me about it (if he exists) and all I can tell the OP is that he should find a libertarian to yell at. No self-respecting libertarian would let me darken their door (I still get angry emails after saying I favored some sort of government health care system, a la Europe or Canada).

I am a civil libertarian (civil libertarian noun: a person who actively supports or works for the protection or expansion of civil liberties.) not an economic libertarian. I am a fan of the ACLU, not the Mises institute.
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11317
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Chris73 » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:08 pm

Doondi69 wrote:It ...<blah, blah, blah>... would be the same.


'Ares urged on the Trojans,
while bright-eyed Athena kept rousing the Achaeans.
With them came Terror, Fear, and tireless Strife,
sister and companion of man-destroying Ares—
at first small in stature, she later grows enormous,
head reaching heaven, as she strides across the earth.
Strife went through crowds of soldiers, casting hatred
on both sides equally, multiplying human miseries.' - Homer, Iliad 4.440

'Don't get all :facepalm: with me,...' - Benkei

:shakinghead: I hate people. - Kath
User avatar
Chris73
Senior Member
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Texas

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby de officiis » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:37 pm

Are we to assume that bringing federal spending under control will mean the repeal of the CRA of 1964 or the failure to fund the EEOC? Also, don't most states have their own civil rights statutes on the books?
Image
User avatar
de officiis
Satrap
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Kath » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:43 pm

de officiis wrote:Are we to assume that bringing federal spending under control will mean the repeal of the CRA of 1964 or the failure to fund the EEOC? Also, don't most states have their own civil rights statutes on the books?

There does seem to be an awful lot of discussion around here that following the constitution, government removing barriers to entry for small businesses, being more fiscally responsible, etc., will lead to the removal of the civil rights act.

Wanna guess what happens next? Every business owner in America puts a "whites only" sign on their door.

No, really, that's what I keep getting told. (We have this discussion constantly, around here..)

Doondi69 wrote: Its been 400 years since whites could own property or have equal rights. Did that financial foundation prevent their children from prospering"?


Welcome to the board, Doondi69. :welcome:

This thought is generally understood around here. We just disagree that getting government back under control will reverse all the progress we've made. Shit, even in my lifetime I've seen pretty dramatic changes. These changes don't reverse because we ask government to get itself under control and back to serving the people like it's supposed to.
If you believe you can't do something, you are absolutely right.
User avatar
Kath
Archon
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby pilot_mkn » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:12 pm

You know what would happen if you put up that "whites only" sign if there were no Civil Rights Act?

The same thing that happened to Go Daddy when it came out in support of SOPA: your name gets plastered all over the news and your customers take their money elsewhere and now everyone knows you're a bigot.
The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves
-Lysander Spooner

The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State...is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
-Murray Rothbard
User avatar
pilot_mkn
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:47 am
Location: Mississippi

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Dan » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:16 pm

pilot_mkn wrote:You know what would happen if you put up that "whites only" sign if there were no Civil Rights Act?

The same thing that happened to Go Daddy when it came out in support of SOPA: your name gets plastered all over the news and your customers take their money elsewhere and now everyone knows you're a bigot.


...and rightly so. :wink:
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11317
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:02 pm

robin wrote:Welcome to the community. Are you referring to the history episode on Magellan? Just curious how long you have been festering. I am also not sure I would be giving "Ben" assignments until the next HH episode is out. He might get the idea that he can procrastinate on finishing the episode.

"BEN" GET BACK TO WORK. . . NOW!


Thanks for the welcome...
I'm referring to Common Sense most recent show... Elephant.
Dan rightly pointed out that the panel on Meet the Press came up short on Tim Russert.
The presidential candidate virtually promises an open war.

If memory serves within that show Dan mentioned that Barry signed into law something pernicious and although Barry promised he'd never use the law he'd signed anyway.
So my contention is that if Dan could see that then he ought to be able to see the similar exposure that a certain part of the USA gets exposed to should the "small government" folks get their way -- even though they themselves would insist that is far beyond them to ever use these new found laws in such a manner (even though the exposure is there).

Thanks for the welcome.....
For the record Dan is one of my can't miss shows both Hardcore History and Common Sense.
But he suffers from colour blindness.
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:13 pm

exposno1 wrote:
robin wrote:"BEN" GET BACK TO WORK. . . NOW!

You okay, man? :unsure:



:lol:


. . . oh, and welcome, Doondi . . . you may want to loosen the grip, a bit! :)



Are you being funny!!!!
I haven't even started!!!! LOL
Dan get's to rant - pull his car aside and bang the steering wheel and I can't get a single post in jeeeze louise!!!! JK JK

I'm not as racially sensitive as you might think. It's just that Dan pointed out somethings that if he took the time use the exact same logical deconstruction in some other areas then he would see that the a contributing problem to the growth of government is (from history) the use of Civil Libertarianism principles to the detriment of a whole segment of the US population.

PS Thanks for the advice.
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:20 pm

Quasigriz wrote:Welcome aboard!


the little secret is that Obama doesn't care about you or your liberties no matter what color your skin is.

Both Republicans and Democrats are only concerned with wealth and power. Both people marginalize the populace; catering to the wealthy while supressing the poor. Bey both have there seperate reasons for doing so.

Good luck getting anyone else to post on this thread. :hug:



Totally agree.... Pres. Obama is a politician.
And judging by his track record (that I've seen) in office those that cheered GW should be cheering Obama with a full throated support. At the same time those that threw shoes at GW should be throwing shoes at Barry. So then why don't we see this?
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Dan wrote:Well, Ben told me about it (if he exists) and all I can tell the OP is that he should find a libertarian to yell at. No self-respecting libertarian would let me darken their door (I still get angry emails after saying I favored some sort of government health care system, a la Europe or Canada).

I am a civil libertarian (civil libertarian noun: a person who actively supports or works for the protection or expansion of civil liberties.) not an economic libertarian. I am a fan of the ACLU, not the Mises institute.


To borrow a thought from that great american literary figure Dr. Seuss.
It doesn't matter what you call it. Green Eggs & Ham are Green Eggs & Ham.

The net effect is what is at play.
If your scheme allows the store owners civil liberties deny the rights that he enjoys, to others at his own discretion then you have paved the way for some other person of your ilk the means to act on that gap, that loophole, that backdoor.

So then if you can see (and rightfully so) that in the instance of signing a bill that exposes YOU how about applying that same logic to others (that are ostensibly part of the...."us") when proposing/backing movements that exposes others to what has been clear history.

Thus the snake biting itself. If it can't recognize it's tail as part of itself.

PS.... :worship:
You're doing a good work, save the "colour blindness".

I am not left and I am not right.... I've bounced back and forth so many times only to be disgusted by the whole thing. The less true Biblical principles the more laws and government you'll need in order to make up the difference.

PPS....? Thanks man for looking at my outta control rant.
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye

Postby Doondi69 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:43 pm

Chris73 wrote:
Doondi69 wrote:It ...<blah, blah, blah>... would be the same.





Jeeeeeze another guy telling me to lighten up!!!!
You really didn't address any of the several points I put out there.
As wrong as Obama was to sign such a law and as bad as Dick Greggory was to let Santorum get away with such a nonsense as a promised war in our christmas stockings.

How can Dan see what was done in the name of Civil Libertarianism without saying whoa...!
How would Ron Paul or others along that ilk prevent abuses by one part of the US population on another part of the US population -- as history has shown. We're not talking theory we're talking history. So we see the serpent biting itself. Pumping more and more toxic laws into the system until both parts die.

The idea that these two populations are based on race is not of my choosing. it is the facts of history.
User avatar
Doondi69
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm

Next

Return to Introduce Yourself

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest