AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
The So-Called Right to Bear Arms
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kristie(J)



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1110
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Well, you might think your country is "very tolerant" and you have a right to express an opinion ... but apparently only opinions that are approved.


Wow Lisa you are truly a frightening woman! I've read a few of your posts here and truly scary. Please confine yourself to statements about the US and keep your totally and completely ignorant comments about other countries and their laws to yourself. You've never lived in Canada - that is clearly obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2477

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rationally, I don't think it's possible to assert that some intolerance for "something," or "someone" exists in every nation on the globe. Thus, even though I would question that Lisa W's example completely supports her position, she has demonstrated that some intolerance--for hateful ideas, if nothing else--exists in Canada as well as elsewhere.

I don't really think she's written anything frightening, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maggie AAR
Site Admin


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 2427

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kristie(J) wrote:
Quote:
Well, you might think your country is "very tolerant" and you have a right to express an opinion ... but apparently only opinions that are approved.


Wow Lisa you are truly a frightening woman! I've read a few of your posts here and truly scary. Please confine yourself to statements about the US and keep your totally and completely ignorant comments about other countries and their laws to yourself. You've never lived in Canada - that is clearly obvious.


Krisite,

I've lived in Canada (for two years), spent many summers in Canada (friends lived there) and had a best friend from Canada. In fact, I have a T-shirt from "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (US just has no equivalent to that show. None.) Wink Heck, my favorite current kid tv show is even Canadian ("Life with Derek" better than any dreck Disney Produces. It was wise of them to buy rights to this.)

So I say with love, Canadians aren't perfect. The only near perfect people I have ever know were from Minnesota (no, I'm not from there but I lived there too and believe me, they really are nice) but even they had their faults. Intolerance is an insidious little beast that lives everywhere among everyone and anyone. We all have to guard against it. I met some of the nicest, kindest people I have ever known in Canada -- but I can also remember sitting with a lady who spoke very bitterly against the Native Americans and she and her friends displayed an amazing amount of intolerance toward the people and their culture. This hour actually did some stories around the bigotry Native Americans have faced in Canada. I don't think it is officially sanctioned or anything, just that it has existed in recent generations and that everyone should remember that little chink in their armor so to speak.

Soooo, that long winded post to say Canadians are great and far more tolerant of many things that Americans aren't tolerant of. But to imply there is no intolerance at all there? Ah, not the experience of someone who has been there, lived there.

maggie b.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Margaret



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 878

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
LisaW wrote ... but apparently only opinions that are approved.


I promised myself I wouldn't say more on this topic, but hey. My interpretation of the above comment is that we have to have "approved" speech, and that is ridiculous. I think some form of intolerance exists everywhere, of course some are worse than others, I don't think any Canadian here was stating otherwiese.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jillian



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Beautiful Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, I had promised myself to stay of of this, but, I have to jump to Lisa W's defense.
Canada has the Federal Human Rights Council, a court where anyone can sue someone else for making statements or writing articles or books that they find insulting or racist.
The defendants can have their day in court(lawyers in tow & following a federal investigation) to defend their statements, but, even if they are found not guilty they have no way to sue for their court costs and legal fees. So even someone who wins, looses.
The mere existence of this federal court tells me that Canadians do not have the same freedom of speech as Americans do.
_________________
"Absolute certainty is the greatest of all illusions." Harry Trevelyan - Absolutely Positively by J.A.K.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margaret



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 878

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

The mere existence of this federal court tells me that Canadians do not have the same freedom of speech as Americans do.


We do have laws that prevent hate speech, but it is more complex than some are painting it and we do have free speech. Are we different than America? Yes. Freedom is not free.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1353

PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw this quote today on a Word a Day site:
“Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” -Carl Schurz, revolutionary, statesman and reformer (1829-1906)
I think it is a great illustration of the way some people confuse jingoism or chauvinism for patriotism. A patriot pays attention to the last sentence. A jingoist or chauvinist stops with the first sentence. The distinction came to mind a month or three ago when Mrs. Obama’s comment about being proud of American for the first time in her life was called unpatriotic by a lot of people who don’t know the difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2477

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

to Mark: But don't you think, "for the first time in my life" was a bit too exclusive? Was there nothing in the last 40 years or so for which Mrs. Obama could take pride in the US?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
to Mark: But don't you think, "for the first time in my life" was a bit too exclusive? Was there nothing in the last 40 years or so for which Mrs. Obama could take pride in the US?


Yes, I think that about sums it up for a lot of people I know. It's not so much that most don't believe she isn't patriotic but that they wonder what she meant about how she felt the rest of her life. It was more of a statement that left everyone thinking "Huh?" than thinking she was blatantly unpatriotic. It simply needed more explanation as to why in the world now would be the first time someone of her accomplishments wouldn only feel patriotic now.

Downtrodden she is not.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I saw this quote today on a Word a Day site:
“Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” -Carl Schurz, revolutionary, statesman and reformer (1829-1906)
I think it is a great illustration of the way some people confuse jingoism or chauvinism for patriotism. A patriot pays attention to the last sentence. A jingoist or chauvinist stops with the first sentence. The distinction came to mind a month or three ago when Mrs. Obama’s comment about being proud of American for the first time in her life was called unpatriotic by a lot of people who don’t know the difference.



Mark:

Thanks for posting this quote as it is most appropriate leading up to the national election. It is our responsibility as American citizens to speak when our country is headed in the wrong direction. Or at least for those who think it's headed in the wrong direction. Everybody sees issues differently. It's a matter of perspective. Since I am not black I don't know what experiences Mrs. Obama has encountered but I do know that as a country we have not always been supportive of black people. It is quite historical having Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party so we are making great strides. Hopefully, he will be our next President. That will be even more of a magnitude when a person's intellect, talent, accomplishments and character matter more than skin color.

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2477

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

to KarenS: I don't think I follow what you're saying in your post.
What, exactly, does the quote by Mark have to do with the election? Or with the nominee, for that matter? Actually, in my thinking, to consider Obama's nomination as putting a wrong, right, is a subtle kind of racism, suggesting that his skin color is more important than whatever qualities he will bring to the presidency. If I read your post correctly, I could suggest, along the same vein of thought, that failure to nominate Hillary Clinton is continuing a wrong, because a woman was NOT nominated.

By any kind of reasoning, election of a president should have nothing to do with righting wrongs done to either a race or a gender. It should have to do with, as you suggest, the qualifications of the individual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
to KarenS: I don't think I follow what you're saying in your post.
What, exactly, does the quote by Mark have to do with the election? Or with the nominee, for that matter? Actually, in my thinking, to consider Obama's nomination as putting a wrong, right, is a subtle kind of racism, suggesting that his skin color is more important than whatever qualities he will bring to the presidency. If I read your post correctly, I could suggest, along the same vein of thought, that failure to nominate Hillary Clinton is continuing a wrong, because a woman was NOT nominated.

By any kind of reasoning, election of a president should have nothing to do with righting wrongs done to either a race or a gender. It should have to do with, as you suggest, the qualifications of the individual.


Dick:

Considering our past history with race relations, it is a big deal to be nominating a black person to run for the highest office in the land. Just as it would be if Hillary had been nominated. Obama does have a rough road to hoe as 15% of the American voters have indicated they are unwilling to vote for a black person (racist). All because of skin color and they can't get beyond that. I guess slavery would still be ok with them. We all have to examine our prejudices as we all have them. We do fear different and those that aren't like us. We still have problems with certain religions, skin color and even political diversity. I have a cousin who doesn't like to visit a town because there are too many liberals in that town. Here I am a liberal and she actually said that to me. Needless to say, I don't see that cousin very often.

Obama wasn't my first choice for nominee but I certainly admire him and feel he has a vision for our country. More than anything, America needs a Renaissance. We need change and we need to head in a new direction if we are to keep up with the rest of the world. We need new ideas and innovation. The Republican Party is the party of the status-quo where everything is just hunky-dory. You may agree with them. Maybe, life is good for you. But for many Americans, they are struggling to make ends meet, have a decent quality of life and feel confident about the future.

This is not America bashing. I see my country headed in the wrong direction. You may not. We are entitled to our opinions. We need to develop a strong energy policy that weans us away from oil, we need decent health care for every American so no one is one step away from medical bankruptcy, get us out of a war that is going to bankrupt our economy if it hasn't already and improve education so that we don't rank near the bottom. This is what Obama stands for and that is why I support him.

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1767
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Considering our past history with race relations, it is a big deal to be nominating a black person to run for the highest office in the land. Just as it would be if Hillary had been nominated. Obama does have a rough road to hoe as 15% of the American voters have indicated they are unwilling to vote for a black person (racist). All because of skin color and they can't get beyond that. I guess slavery would still be ok with them. We all have to examine our prejudices as we all have them. We do fear different and those that aren't like us. We still have problems with certain religions, skin color and even political diversity. I have a cousin who doesn't like to visit a town because there are too many liberals in that town. Here I am a liberal and she actually said that to me. Needless to say, I don't see that cousin very often.


Obama was not my choice during the nominating process. He's been on the national stage, in comparison to his rivals, for about two seconds and has done very little in the U.S. Senate, basically because he's been too busy running for President. (Plus, I can't stand how her fellow male candidates and the "liberal media" treated Hillary. It was downright sexist, with no apologies, even from liberal men!) "Lucky for me," I live in D.C., which is so heavily Democratic that McCain could never win our electoral votes. That leaves it open for me to write in whatever candidate I want. (If I lived in a state that was actually in contention, I'd have to swallow my disappointment in the nominee and vote for Obama.) However, if Obama chooses a running mate I particularly like, I might vote for him even in D.C.!

What the Democrats have to be very careful about is the "Bradley," "Ford," or "Gant" syndrome.... Whatever you want to call it. This is the situation where potential voters will lie to the pollsters and say they will vote for a minority candidate so as not to appear racist, when in actuality they won't be able to get themselves to follow through. So, in a close national race, it's wise to shave a few polling points off of Obama's lead to account for that situation -- even as much as five points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2477

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Obama's nomination is a historical event had little to do with my point. My point was about electing ANYBODY, male or female, black or white or yellow, in order to right a wrong. Electing a black man is not going to do away with racism; electing a white man is not going to increase it. In fact, from what I read in the news and the polls, this election and Obama's candidacy, have divided the races more than it has brought them together.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:


It is quite historical having Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party so we are making great strides. Hopefully, he will be our next President. That will be even more of a magnitude when a person's intellect, talent, accomplishments and character matter more than skin color.

Karen



At least you seem to understand the importance of voting for a person's intellect, talent, accomplishments and character instead of skin color.

Quote:




More than anything, America needs a Renaissance. We need change and we need to head in a new direction if we are to keep up with the rest of the world. We need new ideas and innovation. The Republican Party is the party of the status-quo where everything is just hunky-dory. You may agree with them. Maybe, life is good for you. But for many Americans, they are struggling to make ends meet, have a decent quality of life and feel confident about the future.




Saying "I'll bring change" and not giving examples doesn't mean there will be change. Saying "I'll bring change" and then talk about how what you will do is what has been done whenever your party has been in the majority but seems not to accomplish much ...

If you think "taxing the rich" when "the rich" are those making $200k or more (no, those are the guys out there, generally self-employed, trying to create jobs here in the US), is going to be change ... you're wrong. Per the Dept of Treasury's own site, 86% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes. The top 1% of earners pay 39% of all Federal Taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay about 3% of all Federal Taxes.

That lovely rallying cry "The Republicans only wnat tax breaks for the RICH!" is nonsense, since the tax cuts were across the board. What wasn't done was to give more money back to those who weren't paying any taxes at all.

The US Government can't even handle itself well. The IRS seems to have lost some huge amount of collected money ... and don't know where it went. When the government asks for quotes for prices, we all laughed at the $500 toilet seats and $200 hammers ... but when companies have to follow the government rules (not for safety but for packaging!!!!), the prices go up. The government does not produce more jobs, more economy by taxing.

But, well, if the change you want is even less money coming into your home from your hard work ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group