Looting Video

[CamB]

Norway is mega socialist... and wealthy (oil, you see).

Mul - your post beginning "No, I blame liberals for filling their heads full of hate..." is about as offensive (and stupid) as the assertion that Bush (and Republicans) hate black people. Neither comment is true and anyone believing either one needs to get out more, or something.

I feel I'm having to say this more and more frequently - liberals are not the source of all problems in the world. Neither, for that matter, are socialists. More confusingly, they aren't even necessarily the same thing.

I live in a country with a government (6 years on, although it may end tomorrow) which you would consider socialist (it is centre left - well left of your Democrats as it is a coalition of a similar party to the Dems and a "green" party).

We've had 6 years of strong economic growth, have virtually full employment (lowest in the OECD) and the govt is running a surplus.

How does our little data point fit into your tirades?

[Jeff Higgins]

Cam, from your answer to Mul's post, it is clear you do not "see the difference". I'm not sure how the politics of racism are played in your country, but I sure hope it is a better situation than it is here. Mul throws some extremely far-right rhetoric out here for us to peruse, but this time he hits the nail squarely on the head.

We have a huge problem with inner-city blacks that must be addressed. The dissagreement is in what the nature of the problem is, and therefore what to do about it. One side would prefer to coddle and support them, and thereby rather cynically earn their trust and therefore their votes. I say "cynically" because the rich fat cats understand deep down inside that they will never build a rapport; but that's o.k.; they still get the votes. I also believe these movers and shakers that provide lifelong welfare to these people could really care less if it helps them or not; again, it gets the votes.

The other side prefers the "tough love" approach. Wean them from the welfare teat; they CAN be productive and contributing members of society. They understand that generational listlessness and laziness is a very tough cycle to break. They understand that the other side paints them (rather successfully) as mean racists. They are willing to accept that, however, to restore the dignity and productivity of these people.

I have a number of successful black friends and acquaintences. Guess which side of the argument they ALL land on? They have more open disdain for "ghetto niggas" than any white folks I know. None of these folks that I know were born with the proverbial silver spoon up their asses either - they all started life about where I did, in middle-class America. With two parents, one or both of which was gainfully employed. They are married and raising healthy families; very much the anti-thesis of the "ghetto nigga" (their description, not mine).

We do have a problem here, and I suspect the nature of it is different than what you may have there, if you have a problem at all. By your employment rates, it appears you may not even have the same problems. In this country, the champions of welfare are the liberals; the advocates of "get off yer dead ass and DO something" are conservatives. So, yes, while liberals did not "cause" this problem, it is becoming increasingly apparent that their solution is not fixing it. We have had several generations on welfare now, with no end in sight. We might owe it to these folks to try something else... tough love...

[ronin]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
ahh, I see... he's one of those, "socialism is a beautiful idea, if only people were more perfect," types.

no. actually he's one of those "socialism is beautiful, the only reason for its abject failure so far is that it hasn't been tried by the right people" types

[ken_xman]

I hate everyone equally.

[ronin]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
We have a huge problem with inner-city blacks that must be addressed. The dissagreement is in what the nature of the problem is, and therefore what to do about it. One side would prefer to coddle and support them, and thereby rather cynically earn their trust and therefore their votes. I say "cynically" because the rich fat cats understand deep down inside that they will never build a rapport; but that's o.k.; they still get the votes. I also believe these movers and shakers that provide lifelong welfare to these people could really care less if it helps them or not; again, it gets the votes.

beautifully put. (along with everything else in your post) this is a point which I was trying to elucidate to my (left-leaning) g/f just a day or so ago. the left may be the champions-by-default of "human rights" and other well-meaning causes, but - in practice - those on the left do more to separate themselves from the very masses which they claim to represent. in many ways, New Orleans is a case in point

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
How does our little data point fit into your tirades?

Inconsequential exceptions fit nowhere in my tirades...patterns of proportionate corruption:socialism and societal breakdown do...The trajectory of socialism and its inevitable descendent, rejection of God, has ushered in some pretty ugly evil in the last 100 years...Once this socialism has had its sure effect on America--decay, decline and bankruptcy--then who will wipe the world's rear?...The UN?

[azasadny]

From the size of the folks I've seen on the videos, they don't look like they are lacking any food.

[aways]

I suspect he folks in the video define themselves primarily as victims of racism, thanks to constant brainwashing by the Democratic party elites. As such, they feel a certain sense of entitlement that goes along with their victim status. In this case, to loot at will with a "clear" moral conscience.

[ronin]

Originally posted by azasadny
From the size of the folks I've seen on the videos, they don't look like they are lacking any food.

sad but true

[Aurel]

And they like beer too...

Aurel

[CamB]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
[B]We have a huge problem with inner-city blacks that must be addressed. The dissagreement is in what the nature of the problem is, and therefore what to do about it. One side would prefer to coddle and support them, and thereby rather cynically earn their trust and therefore their votes. I say "cynically" because the rich fat cats understand deep down inside that they will never build a rapport; but that's o.k.; they still get the votes. I also believe these movers and shakers that provide lifelong welfare to these people could really care less if it helps them or not; again, it gets the votes.

The other side prefers the "tough love" approach. Wean them from the welfare teat; they CAN be productive and contributing members of society. They understand that generational listlessness and laziness is a very tough cycle to break. They understand that the other side paints them (rather successfully) as mean racists. They are willing to accept that, however, to restore the dignity and productivity of these people.

Jeff - this isn't really a fair comparison. Your starting point is:

a) liberals are vote sucking mongrels who buy votes with welfare
b) conservatives want what is right (even if it loses votes?).

This is not the case. The liberals believe in the benefits of welfare. I think it has a place - I abhor intergenerational dependency, but I've looked at the statistics which shows that total dependency on welfare is the exception, not the rule, for those on welfare.

It is an ideological difference between liberals and conservatives, and looking around the world I'm not sure I see an answer either way.

We definitely have the same type of demographic split as you do here - not included in "unemployment" are those people on:

- sickness benefits (can't work because of "debilatating" sickness/injury)
- solo mums getting the domestic purposes benefit
- etc (the etc is reasonably small)

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by CamB
Jeff - this isn't really a fair comparison. Your starting point is:

a) liberals are vote sucking mongrels who buy votes with welfare
b) conservatives want what is right (even if it loses votes?).

Cam, of course we both know it's never that cut and dried. Both sides honestly believe what they are doing is right. My post was a vast over-simplification of just a very small part of the problem, and admitedly meant to be just a wee bit inflamatory.

We have had multi-generational welfare in our country; it sounds like you might have some of that in your country as well. I find it interesting the catagories left out of your welfare statistics. That's an age-old trick of politicians, but a rose is a rose by any other name... Anyway, in America, we are making no headway in weaning our welfare population from this lifestyle. The images being broadcast to the world from New Orleans serve to highlight the problems encountered when this class of people are asked, in a life-threatening emergency, to dig in and show some strength of character. They simply cannot. They have never been asked to in their entire lives. Remember all the stuff you though really sucked as a kid, the stuff that your folks told you "built character"? I'm not sure these folks even have those experiences to draw upon, or the moral guidance to tell them what they mean.

The point I was trying to make concerning all of this is that we have tried one approach for longer than my lifetime. For several generations. That approach is the coddling; the free ride championed by the left. It is showing no signs of working. How long do we give it? When do we try another approach? Most folks have to learn to work for things; our innate nature is to take the easy path. I think the "tough love" approach may be the next to try. Make them start earning their way; stop the handouts. Maybe after such a national "character building" exercise, we won't see any more New Orleans-esque behaviour in another disaster.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
Jeff - this isn't really a fair comparison. Your starting point is:

a) liberals are vote sucking mongrels who buy votes with welfare
b) conservatives want what is right (even if it loses votes?).

This is not the case.

Truth is stranger than fiction...for example...Right before Slick left office he did what for Puerto Rican votes in New York?...Why he pardoned FALN Puerto Rican terrorists...What did he do for the Jewish vote?...He pardoned the Hasidim that were bilking the taxpayers setting up a fictitious yeshiva to receive federal student aid money.

The truth is stranger than fiction...Welfare buys votes, which is not so strange.

[CamB]

So does promises of tax cuts from conservatives - both policies (tax cuts and welfare) are arguably valid. You guys are only seeing one side of the argument, which is sad.