Hurricane relief

"TL" wrote in message
...
Gary, although you are correct and your arguments very well stated,
I'm sure you realize that you will not change the minds of those whose
view of reality is clouded by their racism. Still, I think it is
important to not let such fools have the only word here. [...]

His comments probably fall on deaf ears. But I agree with you, I for one am
happy someone has the stamina and motivation to keep up the good fight. I
hate to imagine how bad things would be if no one spoke out in favor of
logic and compassion when presented with the kinds of backward thinking
Gary's been dealing with here.

Pete

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...
Personally, I find it just as offensive to suggest a secret 'agenda' by
a "compassionate conservative" conspiracy as it is to suggest an
opposite 'agenda' by a "liberal media." There are conservative racists,
and there are liberal racists. I don't like and don't agree with either
kind. I don't think you can assume that someone who is a "conservative"
on some issues is a racist, any more than you can assume that someone
who is a "liberal" on some issues is not. Most people are far more
complex than that.

No argument there. I do not, by any means, simply equate conservatives with
racists (or liberals with the opposite). And yes, there are certainly many
conservatives who are compassionate. (Even the most egregiously offensive
posters here are likely compassionate in many aspects of their lives. People
are indeed complex.) But I do think "compassionate conservatism", as a
political movement, was engineered to whitewash for public consumption an
ideology whose motivations and effects are, on the whole, anything but
compassionate. (Surely it is not implausibly conspiratorial to suggest that
national political campaigns explicitly try to put an appealing spin on
their messages.)

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

(Surely it is not implausibly conspiratorial to suggest that
national political campaigns explicitly try to put an appealing spin on
their messages.)

yes. In fact, all national political campaigns do that, from the most
left-wing liberal stuff to the most right-wing conservative stuff, as well
as all the wacko stuff that wouldn't fit logically into such a spectrum.

and don't call me ... ;-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote:
(Surely it is not implausibly conspiratorial to suggest that
national political campaigns explicitly try to put an appealing spin
on
their messages.)

yes. In fact, all national political campaigns do that, from the most
left-wing liberal stuff to the most right-wing conservative stuff, as
well
as all the wacko stuff that wouldn't fit logically into such a
spectrum.

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.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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? What a profound abrogation
of intellectual responsibility! (Even in a *literal* war zone, there is not
necessarily more than one person in a hundred participating in the
hostilities.)

All that is obvious is that *some* of the stranded N.O. residents have
behaved violently. What I asked, specifically, is whether the percentage is
nonnegligible. You have not been able or willing to articulate any reason to
think so.

--Gary

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

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

"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

"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

"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