Skip navigation

diversitylane_chippewa_for-blog

Advertisements

54 Comments

    • NOTnchammer
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:15 am
    • Permalink

    I find it funny that Diversity is carrying that Sarte book, since she’s the one who’s pessimistic, and her parents who are more optimistic.

    Also, since when is protesting things stricktly liberal? Which reminds me, anybody want some tea?

    http://www.cracked.com/article_17607_p3.html

    • Hysterical Woman
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:01 pm
    • Permalink

    Liberals are thoughtful parent. They can tolerate their children being around people with different viewpoints.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:12 pm
    • Permalink

    Hysterical: Tell that to the parents who protest “Meet Me At The Flagpole.”

  1. Norman Hines: go tell George Tiller about how conservatives are the tolerant and reasoned protesters.

    Oh wait, you guys murdered him!

    I guess you could go talk to Pittsburgh’s police department about the Right’s record of tact and de– wait, no you guys murdered three of their officers. Oops!

    I’m sure the fine folks at the Holocaust Museum or anyone who’s had a loved one’s funeral picketed by the Westboro “God Hates Fags” Baptist Church would know that Liberals are the TRULY intolerant, disruptive force in public debate today.

    Don’t get me wrong, Norman, I’m sure you (and Zack) do not agree with all (or even any) of the “protests” I’ve mentioned, but if you want to talk about society as if it’s a team sport where it’s All the Liberals vs. All the Conservatives and want people to account for all Liberals, I sure hope you’re ready to open up that Big Tent and stand behind the actions of Your Teammates. It’s a terrible way to do things, but I’m not making the rules here.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Whose more tolerant of the other side’s rights, the Left or the Right? I could, like you, give anecdotal examples of extremists one could arguably lump in with the Other Side, but I’m not going to.

    I’m just astonished tha Pelosi accuses the Right of doing the very same thing the Left has done since the Sixties; namely, community organizing protests.

    • Steve T
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 4:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack,
    I had an idea, or visualized this; …while at summer camp, Jason gets nosy and discovers in Diversity’s foot locker, a few ‘taboo’ items she has to keep hidden at home;

    The Bible

    Culture of Corruption – Michelle Malkin’s new book,

    The Book of Virtues – William J Bennett,

    The Way Things Ought to Be – Rush Limbaugh

    The shattering effect back in the Lane household, when Jason is calling his dad, could be a fun illustration.
    ~ just a thought of a conservative rebel-!

    • Hysterical Woman
    • Posted August 10, 2009 at 9:00 pm
    • Permalink

    I can only speak for myself but I’m fine with that, as long as they don’t spend public school fund and the teachers stay out.

  2. Those lib nazis are infiltrating everywhere!
    [website deleted]

  3. Meh…report me to your emperor.

  4. Steve T– Yeah, why should I publicize only Sartre and nihilists’ garbage– let’s give Bill Bennett’s book some publicity! It’s a fun concept you’ve got there. Though, Devon might have a stroke to see The Book of Virtues in that house and I’d lose a prime character.

    I’m with you Norman: what a kick to see Pelosi, Obama and other primo lefties, nourished on the mother’s milk of ostentatious community protest (cf. the entire tenor of the left during the Bush administration), now wailing and bitching over communities protesting!

    • Jake
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 7:46 am
    • Permalink

    Need to work on your reading comprehension, there Davey-boy. Steve appears to be a fellow conservative. I guess Emperor Zombie Reagan might find you offensive. Perhaps you should dig him up and find out, Davey-boy. Looks like your link got erased, so someone certainly found your tone to be inappropriate, D-boy. I think the “Grow up-!!” part is what you should really focus on, Davey.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 8:21 am
    • Permalink

    Many people superficially on the Right have extremist and indefensible views, which make the bulk of conservatives look bad. But to lump these extremists in with the likes of Bill Bennett and William F. Buckley, Jr. (peace be upon him!) is not fair; it paints with too broad a brush.

    However, one cannot say the same thing about the supporters of various different issues on the Left, since they show up at each other’s rallys. Every leftist rally reminds me of Christmas, with Greens and Reds standing side by side.

    • ikabod
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:59 am
    • Permalink

    Your right Norman, this tactic has been part of the liberal play book for as long as I can remember. Some nazi whackjob, bombs a African American youth center and all conservatives are blamed. Despite us condemning the act. Its a way to break the spirit. “Dang I don’t want to be labeled a Nazi……” Sorry, I know better.

  5. Guilt by association has to work both ways. As someone who opposed the entire Iraq War situation, it was annoying and “looked bad” when the core message of the protest was muddled by all the people that took it as a chance to call Bush Hitler and promote drug legalization and immigration reform and claim Bush Planned 9/11 and every other pet cause they had. Those people are identified as being part of “The Left” and they showed up to events. By that rationale, you’re saying that all people on The Left must support all of those causes.

    I’d disagree pretty heartily, since your position is that you, as someone on the Right, can pick and choose precisely which portions of the The Right are really The Right. I don’t see how it can work both ways.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 10:45 am
    • Permalink

    “Some nazi whackjob, bombs a African American youth center and all conservatives are blamed. Despite us condemning the act.”

    Muslims have routinely condemned the acts of terrorists, like Bin Laden, and yet this site continues to portray Muslims as violent people who hate America. You should apply your opposition to guilt by association to people other than yourself.

    “I’d disagree pretty heartily, since your position is that you, as someone on the Right, can pick and choose precisely which portions of the The Right are really The Right.”

    As Chris has pointed out, you can add “No True Scots” to the list of fallacies employed by this site.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 10:48 am
    • Permalink

    Although it was before my time, William F. Buckley, Jr., worked hard to kick the crazies in the John Birch Society out of the mainstream of the conservative movement.

    I know back in history the unions worked hard to clean thier ranks of international communists, although the IWW (Wobblies) are still around in Ann Arbor, MI.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 10:58 am
    • Permalink

    Oh, Norman, I am finally starting to feel better. Do you recall what comment section we were debating in before I became sick? I’ll try to get a response up for you tomorrow (well, tomorrow in my time zone).

    • ikabod
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Well Chris, in regards to picking and choosing their radicals, I’m getting the impression that the “left” have that ability. All conservatives are racist, homophobes, anti feminist and pro war. Again, as you said it has be both ways. The left cannot simply disregard the absolute anti-Americanism at the peace rally’s during the Bush administration. One such rally I attended, was one San Francisco. I did not see a lot of Lefties arguing with groups promoting Sharia law, death to Israel, or even the worlds workers party. They were there, handing out brochures and generally having a swell time yelling “fuck America”. Now was there a better place to visit that somehow showed the left as being a proponent of individual rights, religious freedom, and even the slightest of display of pro-Americanism? Please if there are show me. Don’t tell me it was Berkley! Radical ass-holes on both sides are thorns in both sides agenda’s. Yet going right to the nazi accusations from Pelosi is laughable. These accusations are designed to put the right on the defensive. Most of the time it works. The danger with allowing radicals and or extremist into whether its the left or the right, Liberal or Conservative is when the slogans become policy. And when they are elected. I no more want David Duke holding political office anymore than Noam Chomsky.

    Jake I do know that Muslims indeed condemn terror. Why here’s a website full of such:
    http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
    Yet somehow the religion of peace is not listening.

  6. I think stamping out extremism on either side is a good idea, but I’m sure we’d have difference of opinions on what constitutes extremism.

    Judging strictly from this site (and the Zack-endorsed IOwntheWorld), I’m seeing that all Muslims are terrorists, and that in your own words “the religion of peace is not listening”, suggesting that in fact Muslims en masse are commiting acts of terror. That sounds extreme to me.

    I think people who oppose any sort of government aid program are extremists. I think people who believe America should be a Christian theocracy and therefore deny rights to gays are extremists. I think calling your opponents Nazi Marxist Scum is extremist. I think the Birthers are extremists.

    On the other hand, from what I gather here, you see pretty much every Democratic politician in office as an extremist. There’s not a lot of common ground to discuss things without Extremism if you truly believe Barack Obama is anything but a centrist who made some center left campaign promises and is currently trending center-right.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm
    • Permalink

    Perhaps another book for Diversity to smuggle into the house is “The Road to Serfdom.”

    • Buckitz
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm
    • Permalink

    Haha!

    There was a camp Chippawa in my town, it was an FDR “Fresh Air” camp, where they would take all the impoverished city kids to. My mother’s side of the family kept running away, my father’s side of the family refused to don clothes.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm
    • Permalink

    “of the big lake they call Gitchigumi” –Gordon Lightfoot

  7. Norman: Good point, that would be an invaluable book for getting you through the household minefields of left-think. Sierra, I fear, would mistake it for a history of The Beach Boys.

    Buckitz: No kidding, I had no idea there actually was such a camp.

    Love the divergent behavior of the relatives– kind of your own
    cartoon series in the making.

    I actually was close to naming it Camp Gitchigumi, Norman, funny you should mention that. Had in mind the Longfellow reference though, not the Lightfoot.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 9:52 am
    • Permalink

    “The legend lives on from the Chippawa on down of the big lake they call Gitchigumi” was full line. I wonder if the Chippawa Nation gets royalties from every Camp Chippawa in the Midwest.

    By the way, I think the Native Americans all got together to discuss a serious issue; “Well, the Europeans finally figured out about tobacco. We now need to come up with something new that’s both destructive AND addictive to sell to them… I know! GAMBLING!”

    Just a thought.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 10:15 am
    • Permalink

    I’m pretty sure gambling existed before Europeans arrived in North America, so I’m not sure that it can be blamed on the Native Americans.

    Gambling is also less destructive than the small-pox infected blankets settlers sold to the natives.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 10:48 am
    • Permalink

    I love Indian Casinos! I don’t have to drive all the way to Vegas. It’s a Native American thing because you don’t need to change a state’s constitution to build one.

    As to the small-pox blankets a besieged fort traded for food, the settlers had all read the Illiad (Troy besieged for 10 years) back in grade school, Jeremiah (Jerusalem besieged so long women were cooking and eating their children) in Sunday school, and enough European history to know the effects of laying siege to an outpost does; kills by starvation and disease. Their ancestors had waged biological war by lobbed dead animals into besieged castles by catapult.

    I’m not defend their actions; I’m just saying they thought of it as tit for tat. It’s too bad the Native Americans had little history of permanent settlements, and thus little knowledge of seige warfare.

    • ikabod
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 10:52 am
    • Permalink

    American Crimes against humanity #105

    “small-pox infected blankets settlers sold to the natives.”

    • Jake
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:08 am
    • Permalink

    “American Crimes against humanity #105

    ‘small-pox infected blankets settlers sold to the natives.'”

    Correct. I’m glad we are in agreement.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:23 am
    • Permalink

    I think the worst thing Europeans did to the Native Americans was introduce the horse to North America. With horses, the nomadic tribes destroyed the more permanently settled tribes, the ones that would have been better equipt to fight European settlers.

    For example, could you see the huge army assembled to wipe out Custer at Little Big Horn marching on Chicago? Maybe if the tribe that built that midwestern city hadn’t been wiped out (by other tribes), it would have prevented Fort Chicago from becoming a city.

    Remember when you bad-mouth Columbus; he brought SPANIARD invaders to the New World, but we can’t say anything bad about European Spanish attrocities for fear of offending the Hispanic peoples.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:45 am
    • Permalink

    I’m really not sure where the “can’t badmouth Columbus” claim is coming from. I seem to recall learning plenty about the oppression of the natives by the Spanish Conquistadors and in the subsequent Spanish colonialist states in South and Central America.

    If anything, the light touch sometimes given to the Spanish operations in the American southwest/Mexico is due to the fact that they were establishing Christian missions. Although the US is a secular nation, Christians have a lot of power of the nation’s dialogue, and they tend to try to promote Christianity throughout history. Here is a current example of Christians trying to use public school curriculum to push their beliefs.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/christianity-religion-texas-history-education

    • JacktheTipper
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:55 am
    • Permalink

    “I think the worst thing Europeans did to the Native Americans was introduce the horse to North America. With horses, the nomadic tribes destroyed the more permanently settled tribes, the ones that would have been better equipt to fight European settlers.”

    Black people sold THEMSELVES into slavery! We were just buying!

    Indians actually killed themselves! We just gave them deadly new diseases and systematically slaughtered them!

    Poor people actually gave us their money of their own free will!

    Bootstraps!

    Let’s not legalize marijuana and solve California’s economic crisis, now excuse me while I guzzle this six-pack!

    FUCK YOU GOT MINE!

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Jack: I think they SHOULD give YOU a prescription for pot; it’ll calm you down. Until then, try some herbal tea.

    Europeans didn’t have to teach the Indians warfare; they did indeed kill each other long before Europeans showed up.

    And yes, some Africans sold other Africans to (Muslim) Arab slavers, who retailed them to Europeans. Whenever one African tribe defeated the other, they sold the survivors to the Arabs.

    You can’t get rich off poor people; they don’t have any money! You have to get money from people who WORK for their money.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm
    • Permalink

    “And yes, some Africans sold other Africans to (Muslim) Arab slavers, who retailed them to Europeans. Whenever one African tribe defeated the other, they sold the survivors to the Arabs.”

    Capitalism in action. Africa supplies slaves to fill the Euopeans’ demand. I hope you aren’t suggesting that this somehow makes the Europeans any less culpable for slavery.

    “You can’t get rich off poor people; they don’t have any money! You have to get money from people who WORK for their money.”

    Your implication that poor people don’t work is pretty naive. I come from a rural part of the country. I know plenty of people who work themselves half to death and still struggle to make ends meet. A lot of the blue collar “real Americans” conservatives pretend to represent actually fall into the “working poor” category.

    • Buckitz
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 1:11 am
    • Permalink

    Zack, I found out when I went thrift store shopping, and found three or four beautiful white crisp cotton camp shirts, with the words, “Camp Chippawa” embroidered in red on the pocket. They were great shirts. I wore one to my parents’ house one Thanksgiving and got laughed at, because they came from a ‘fresh air’ camp.

    Evidently the poshy camps are “Chautauqua”‘s

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 7:23 am
    • Permalink

    When asked why he robbed banks, Willy Sutton supposedly said, “because that’s where the money is.”

    Where did the rich get there money, from the nickels and dimes of the poor? The only group that makes large amounts of money on the backs of the poor is…

    …the GOVERNMENT! Through taxation.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 8:05 am
    • Permalink

    That is why we have a marginal, progressive tax system, so the burden of taxes are placed on the wealthy, who can afford to pay, instead of the poor, who cannot. Hopefully, we can make the system even more progressive, to further reduce the poor man’s burden. As it stands, many poor people pay little or no taxes, but maybe we can get it down to where no poor people are taxed.

    Your response in no way addresses my point about your seeming denial of the existence of the working poor.

    Also, your latest comment seems to directly contradict your previous comment. You are simultaneously asserting that the government can’t take money from the poor and that the government gets most of its money from the poor. Please make up your mind.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 9:27 am
    • Permalink

    My point is that those who oppose big business should oppose the biggest business there is, the federal government. The anti-capitalist has a better home among the libertarians than among the statists.

    By the way, if one make taxes too progressive, one reduces the incentive to produce. In California, the rich (the ones who buy goods and hire people) are leaving.

    Also, progressive taxation does not distinguish between the individual who makes $1M a year and the small business with $1M annual revenue, but with $900K expenses (mostly labor costs). Raise the latter’s taxes, and he may have to lay people off.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 10:18 am
    • Permalink

    If only there were a way to write off business expenses so you aren’t taxed on that part of your revenue.

    This paper claims that the rich are leaving Cali at a slower rate than the poor: ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=885

    This one is from 2007, but it claims that businesses leaving Cali are offset by businesses entering Cali and the majority of business departures occurred when Cali had a “friendlier” business climate: ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=736

    This one states that the rate of job loss in Cali is lower than the national average, but unemployment is higher due to a growing labor force: ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=881

    Happy reading.

    P.S. The working poor are a very real class of citizen and they deserve better than to be called lazy by people like you.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 11:48 am
    • Permalink

    My wife is Vietnamese. Most of her relatives came to America as boat people; dirt poor, most with nothing but the clothes on there back, knowing almost no English. They were the working poor.

    And work they did. They took the lowest jobs at the lowest wages, and saved their money. Many times they were paid in cash, under the table, since there is no market more free than the black market. They lived on rice, and put everyone in the family either to work making money for the family now, or in school to learn to make money in the future.

    They suffered racism, just like the black poor born in this country, and the hispanic poor who came to this country to escape even poorer and more corrupt homelands.

    Now, these working poor are working rich. How did they succeed when others did not?

    • Jake
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm
    • Permalink

    “They suffered racism, just like the black poor born in this country, and the hispanic poor who came to this country to escape even poorer and more corrupt homelands.”

    It’s funny to me that you seem to support the party that strongly opposes poor Hispanics entering the US to escape the poverty of their homeland.

    “How did they succeed when others did not?”

    I guess they are just an exceptional (remember how much you love the idea of exceptional things?) case, so congratulations to your wife’s family. I would hardly call people who spend all day doing hard labor for low pay “lazy”, which seems to be your implication. Not everyone has a family to rely on to pool resources. Single individuals working for just above minimum wage are not going to be able to save much money. They also do not have children to invest in for future familial returns. There are only so many high paying jobs to go around; someone has to do the hard, dirty work that no one wants to touch.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted August 13, 2009 at 1:23 pm
    • Permalink

    The real working poor don’t do the work that Americans don’t want to do; they do the work that Americans don’t want to PAY $7 an hour plus benefits to have done. My wife just paid $20 cash for 4 people working for 1 hour, doing excellent yard work. Good work for a good price is not lazy.

    One of the keys to successful immigration (the Vietnamese now; the Irish 70 to 80 years ago) is Family. A single immigrant gets a cash job for much less than minimum wage, lives off beans and rice, does without in order to save enough to support a family. The motivation comes from cultures where adult childern take care of their own parents.

    Whose gonna take care of you when your old if you don’t raise a family? If you expect strangers to do it, wait for the end-of-life counsellor.

  8. Jake,

    “If only there were a way to write off business expenses so you aren’t taxed on that part of your revenue.”

    You just made me snort Starbucks out my nose. (I don’t care what people’s politics are, that is a funny line. 🙂 )

    “This paper claims that the rich are leaving Cali at a slower rate than the poor.”

    With the California tax structure, even a slower rate of rich households leaving compared with poor households leaving has a much larger impact on the tax base (and on the taxes collected). California simply can’t afford to lose those wealthier residents who pay the most in taxes, at whatever rate they may be leaving.

    That release also misleadingly focuses only on state income taxes and ignores local taxes, a sales tax that can reach 10% in some areas, the car tax, and others — all of which hit poor households much harder as a percentage of their total income than they do the rich households. Maybe that’s why the poor households are fleeing at a higher rate than the rich households are.

    “This one is from 2007, but it claims that businesses leaving Cali are offset by businesses entering Cali and the majority of business departures occurred when Cali had a “friendlier” business climate.”

    The full report is pretty large, but at first glance, it seems to only cover data through 2004. The business friendliness of California (not to mention the situation as a whole) has gotten a good deal worse in the past four-and-a-half years, from what I’ve seen living and working here. (I’ll have to read this one in full when I have more time. It seems like an interesting report. Thanks for posting the link.)

    “This one states that the rate of job loss in Cali is lower than the national average, but unemployment is higher due to a growing labor force.”

    This release fails to mention that one of the largest sources of new jobs in California has been the government/public sector. That’s important context. It would be interesting to see how the rate of job loss in California compared with the national average if only the private sector was being considered. That would give some insight into the true business friendliness of my state, I think.

    • Jake
    • Posted August 14, 2009 at 3:35 am
    • Permalink

    “even a slower rate of rich households leaving compared with poor households leaving has a much larger impact on the tax base (and on the taxes collected)”

    I’m not from Cali, so I cannot say this with any great certainty, but doesn’t CA have a very large, expensive social welfare system? If that is the case, then wouldn’t poor residents receive far more in benefits from the government than they pay in taxes? The rate of low income residents departing is substantially greater than that of high income residents. Shouldn’t the reduction in expenditures on social welfare programs for low income residents offset the loss of tax revenue from those with high income?

    “a sales tax that can reach 10% in some areas, the car tax, and others — all of which hit poor households much harder as a percentage of their total income than they do the rich households.”

    I agree with you on this. This is why I feel that the so called “Fair Tax” plan that would replace income tax with a national sales tax would serve only to benefit the wealthy. “Fair” is a huge misnomer in the case of such a regressive system.

  9. Hi, Jake,

    The problem is that the poorer households moving out of California are being replaced by poorer immigrants, whether from other U.S. states or from foreign countries (either legally or illegally). Expenditures on social welfare programs in California have been increasing over the years, not decreasing. And when the wealthier Californians who pay the most taxes are leaving but not being replaced by other wealthier households, as the poorer households are, you’ve got a real problem…

    • Jake
    • Posted August 14, 2009 at 8:15 am
    • Permalink

    The article I linked showed that poor households are leaving at a rate of 1.73 for every one poor household that moves in. The net change is a significant decrease in impoverished residents. The wealthy, on the other hand leave at 1.09 for every one that enters, which results in a very small net change. The number of poor residents is decreasing at a much more rapid rate than the number of rich residents.

  10. Hi again, Jake,

    The 1.73 rate means nothing in terms of savings in government expenditures when the California government has been continually expanding its programs and increasing its expenditures. Potential savings in one area can be offset be increased expenditures in others, or by more money being spent in a given program to give higher benefits to the same or fewer people. You can’t just look at those rates of 1.73 vs. 1.09 in a vacuum.

    Plus, those rates are 4-year averages for a period that ends in 2007. The situation in California was rather different in 2008 compared to that 4-period, and it’s *very* different here in 2009. Statistics broken down by year (and more recent statistics) are what would be useful, not an average for an arbitrary 4-year period that ended 2 years ago, before California started trying to put in place the really major tax increases and the full effects of the recession hit.

  11. One more thing, Jake…

    Taking another look at that link you provided, I notice that the 1.73 rate only reflects domestic, state-to-state flows of population. It doesn’t include foreign migration (both legal and illegal) to California from abroad. So that’s a seriously misleading statistic for a state like California, especially considering the impact of illegal immigrants on the level of government expenditures for social services out here. You just can’t make any judgment about the California population shifts in the lower-income level by only looking at domestic migration and excluding immigrants (both legal but especially illegal) from abroad.

  12. Ah, here’s what I’m looking for, Jake. Since 2006, the actual number of poor Californians has *increased* by almost 2 million people —

    2006 and 2007:
    “Nearly 4.6 million Californians (12.7 percent) had incomes below the federal poverty line in 2007,
    up from approximately 4.4 million (12.2 percent) in 2006” (http://www.cbp.org/documents/080826_pressrelease_censusdata.pdf)

    2009:
    “California has the highest number of people in poverty in the nation – 6.4 million, including nearly one in five children.” (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney+Resources/California+Bar+Journal/December2002&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2002-12_TH_4_Legal-help.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top+Headlines)

  13. Crap, I got the dates wrong on the 2009 one. That’s actaually 2002. My bad.

    I’ll keep looking for the most recent figures.

    • ikabod
    • Posted August 18, 2009 at 10:34 am
    • Permalink

    Jake-

    What ever the crimes against humanity that the US has done, how can as a nation atone for such transgressions?

    • ikabod
    • Posted August 19, 2009 at 11:16 am
    • Permalink

    So I am to understand the countless times the United States has helped the world through our involvement war and humanitarian aide is to be canceled out due to the treatment of Native Americans? Slavery? I would grant you that argument if these things were still happening today. There not. Somehow we are to travel the world as Americans with our head held low, in disgrace and shame. Now with the “One” I’m supposed to be proud? Really?

  14. Let’s face it…liberals are VERY patriotic….soviets.

  15. Good one, David. And as much as some who frequent this blog might object to your comment, we all know damn well that there are any number of left/liberal celebs (e.g. Spielberg, Nicholson) who’ve been only too delighted to sit enthralled at the feet of Castro… can there be much doubt that they’d get roughly the same chic thrills by a visit to the Soviet Union, were it still extant?

  16. Let’s face it…conservatives are VERY patriotic…if they are in charge.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: