If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet shown on a roof waiting. Are you actually not aware that the media shows what is controversial rather than what actually is? In the pictures, I can't even *TELL* what race the folks are. They just look like very wet folks who could use some potable water, a hot meal, a shower, and a lift to the nearest solid ground. Why should anyone care about anything else? -Luke |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Luke Scharf wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Majority, yes, 100%, no. I've not seen a white or Hispanic person yet shown on a roof waiting. Are you actually not aware that the media shows what is controversial rather than what actually is? In the pictures, I can't even *TELL* what race the folks are. They just look like very wet folks who could use some potable water, a hot meal, a shower, and a lift to the nearest solid ground. Why should anyone care about anything else? They shouldn't. The sad part of this is that many folks in the media and politics are claiming that race is playing a role. I find that hard to believe, but I don't live anywhere near NO so who knows. I don't think it is at the federal level which is what the claims have mainly been as Bush clearly did his part even BEFORE the storm hit. I don't know what else they expected Bush to do without a request from the governor. Matt |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence? Evidence? Please. Yes. Evidence. Please. It's a veritable war zone. Res ipsa loquitor. "Res ipsa loquitor [sic]"? So you think your beliefs in this matter are just obviously correct, and thus require no evidence? Yes. The word I used was "many". Look it up. I made no mention of a percentage. You did, in a lame attempt to claim I'm a bigoted anonymous coward. Idiot. moo |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in "Many" of the victims are to blame? *How* many have engaged in the predatory violence you refer to? Even one in a hundred? If so, what is your evidence? Evidence? Please. Yes. Evidence. Please. It's a veritable war zone. Res ipsa loquitor. "Res ipsa loquitor [sic]"? So you think your beliefs in this matter are just obviously correct, and thus require no evidence? Yes. The word I used was "many". Look it up. I made no mention of a percentage. You did, Right. I *asked* you if you had evidence of violence by even one percent of the victims, in an attempt to understand why you characterized the violence as "what you should expect" from people who receive public assistance. And in response to that question about the percentage, your reply (translated from the misspelled Latin) was: "Evidence? Please... It's self-evident.". --Gary |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Res ipsa loquitor [sic]"? So you think your beliefs in this matter are just obviously correct, and thus require no evidence? Yes. The word I used was "many". Look it up. I made no mention of a percentage. You did, Right. I *asked* you if you had evidence of violence by even one percent of the victims, in an attempt to understand why you characterized the violence as "what you should expect" from people who receive public assistance. And in response to that question about the percentage, your reply (translated from the misspelled Latin) was: "Evidence? Please... It's self-evident.". I'm always touched by the occasional dweebish tactic of repeated using a typo to bolster a bull**** argument. I used the word "many" in reference to victims who mastered their own misfortune. I made no mention of percentages. You seem to think it's incumbent upon me to do this and that a failure to meet your expectations diminishes my valid and self-evident point. My references to welfare cases did not disparage the entire group nor did I refer to them as one nor do I think that the majority are social leeches. I referred to a subset of from whom I would expect the observed behavior. And, I said that most of the people carting off TV sets and alcohol instead of essential supplies were wards of the welfare state. We'll see. And, to that, you responded with a paragraph that consisted entirely of a personal attack. Got anything else? moo |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
... My references to welfare cases did not disparage the entire group nor did I refer to them as one nor do I think that the majority are social leeches. I referred to a subset of from whom I would expect the observed behavior. If that was your intent, then your sentiment was indeed less extreme than your original phrasing (asking rhetorically, "what should you expect" from welfare recipients?) suggested. But even if you merely meant to suggest that receiving welfare payments caused an elevated level of violence in a *minute fraction* of recipients in N.O., your assertion is still unfairly issued without any foundation--indeed, without even any *attempt* to provide a foundation. You have not even shown that there *is* a higher level of violence in N.O. than in other dire emergencies in the world in which civil authority collapsed (in the absence of any history of welfare support)--let alone showing that welfare support is the *cause* of the supposedly higher level of violence in N.O. For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O. seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of widespread disasters. (Or do you attribute the rise of the Mafia to welfare payments, too?) --Gary |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote: For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O. seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of widespread disasters. I don't believe prohibitions cause or promote organized crime. The prohibitions create demand for a product, but organized crime is not dependent on the prohibition - organized crime will find *something* even if it has to create it (e.g., "protection"). But at least we can agree that criminal gangs seem to be a primary source of the violence in New Orleans - even if we can't agree on the underlying cause(s). -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
... In article , "Gary Drescher" wrote: For what it's worth, I think a much more plausible speculation (but only a speculation) about the social policies underlying the violence is that it's partly fallout from drug prohibition. The most combat-like violence in N.O. seems to be coming from the organized criminal gangs. And we know from our alcohol-prohibition era that such prohibitions readily promote runaway organized crime that can ravage cities with violence even in the absence of widespread disasters. I don't believe prohibitions cause or promote organized crime. The prohibitions create demand for a product, but organized crime is not dependent on the prohibition - organized crime will find *something* even if it has to create it (e.g., "protection"). Prohibited alcohol and other drugs are an especially lucrative source of illegal income. That they are not the *only* source does not imply that they don't significantly fuel the rise of violent gangs. --Gary |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote:
But I yanked my cable on 9/12/1. They had a ratings war in 1980. I chased my favorite shows (like WKRP) through the different time slots. The next year, I started graduate school, which left me little time for television. I just never got back into the habit. And it is a habit. I know me, and I will sit down and watch anything if there's a TV going in the room. Now, I deliberately avoid it. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote:
What makes me want to weep is the number of my fellow citizens who fall for this crap. People seem to yearn to have their prejudices stroked, and select their information sources accordingly, so that they are not confronted with anything that might-God forbid-cause them to have to rethink their views of the world. I like P.J. O'Roarke's take on this. He's conservative. He listens to things like NPR. He says there's no reason for him to just listen to people who think just like he does. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hurricane relief | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 51 | September 8th 05 03:33 AM |
Hurricane relief | Gary Drescher | Piloting | 2 | September 4th 05 01:01 PM |
Hurricane relief | Gary Drescher | Piloting | 0 | September 4th 05 02:27 AM |
GA Airport center for Charley relief | Bob Chilcoat | Piloting | 4 | August 19th 04 04:04 PM |
Classic RAS posts: Chip Bearden and "pilot relief" | Eric Greenwell | Soaring | 5 | February 20th 04 03:59 AM |