waitforufo

You mean someone is actually suggesting that the government let people keep their own money earned through effort and ability? How is that ever going to work? Everyone understands that only the government knows how to properly spend money. Take the US for example. The US government is so good at spending money their nation is now 20 Trillion dollars in debt. Those crazy tax cutters. It is as if they believe that an invisible hand guided by the will of the people spontaneously creates the economy. What a crazy fantasy. With more taxes everything everyone needed would be provided by government without effort. It would likely be delivered to our doorsteps by solar powered flying robots. We would have world peace and equality without effort. No one would have to do anything and it would all be paid for by taxes. It's an idea better than perpetual motion. Those people with jobs and bank accounts are simply spoiling it for us all.

Perhaps our instincts are so innate to our being that we don't even recognize when we or other humans exhibit them. Our minds are busy doing important things so they simply filter out the obvious expected things that people do. Obvious to us by instinct. For example, my dog always walks around in a circle before he lies down to rest. It's a nesting instinct done without thought. I'm sure it has a purpose in his native environment, but is serves no purpose on my living room carpet. It's obvious to me but not to my dog. Perhaps we are not the keen observers we believe ourselves to be, particularly when we observe ourselves. Now if we do have a nature, and that nature for men and women is different but complementary, will we benefit in denying our natures? I'm not sure. In fact I doubt it.

Well I did say it was a tough nut to crack. You say our way of living has diverged massively to what most of our evolutionary history used to be. I think it is important to consider how log ago did it diverged and for who. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'm sure there are lots of people living today where that statement is not true. Maybe a billion people. I wonder how true that statement was for my great grandfather who was born on an Indian Reservation in Oklahoma in 1867. Was it true for sod busters on the American plains. Even for those of us where your statement is true, that massive divergence is very new, maybe just the last few hundred years. I don't think that time could even be considered part of our evolutionary history. I think most of us like to believe we are blank slates when we are born, but I doubt that is true. For what other species is it true?

While there are stories where race plays an important part, Jim in Huckleberry Fin for example, there are far more stories where race isn't important. In such stories, casting people without regard to race, I believe, gives us a glimpse of how our culture and society should operate. I find stories cast in such a way to be quite refreshing. I find this to be particularly true when the director does not add racial tension which is not found in the original story. If there was no racial tension in the original story, why should it be added to a modern rendition. My world if full of people of different races. Why shouldn't that also apply to my entertainment? The gender issue around games I find to be a different issue. The nature/nurture question is a tough nut to crack. I think one has to look at evolutionary time scales to understand nature. For example Zebras are herd animals. Was there a time in their evolutionary path where they were not herd animals? How has the evolution of Zebras ingrained the herd instinct into Zebras. Similar questions can be asked about gender differences between men and women. How long have there been role differences between the roles of men and women. Has evolution ingrained these role differences into men and women? For example, are women more cooperative and men more competitive. Did these differences improve human survival? Did abstracting problems into games somehow benefit men more than women in contributing to human survival? If so, perhaps men are instinctually more interested in games. Now I'm sure some will be offended by such a line of questioning, but perhaps it shows the importance of diversity. Our survival depends on the skills we developed during our evolution. Why wouldn't our success continue to depend on those diverse skills.

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular. A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California. Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States. Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War. Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short. The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point. The man has no honor. 620,000 Americans died in the Civil war. Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed. Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property. Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys.

Koti I think you are missing the point. By using the term "white males" they are implying Republicans because blacks and feminist vote for Democrats. Yet when it comes to racism in the US, as I have consistently pointed out, history points to Democrats. When doing so on this blog, defenders of the Democratic party always claim that all that Democratic party racist history was transferred to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy of the 1968 election. Does this pan out when looking at data from the 1968 election? Well let's take a look. 1968 Election Results Candidate Party Electoral Votes Popular Votes ✓ Richard M. Nixon Republican 301 31,710,470 Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic 191 30,898,055 George C. Wallace American Independent 46 9,906,473 1968 Election Facts Wallace's tally of 46 marks the most recent election that a 3rd party candidate has won Electoral Votes Nixon won North Carolina; however one Elector cast a vote for Wallace Above George Wallace is listed as "American" Independent" but he was in fact the former Democratic Governor of Alabama. So the racists didn't vote for Nixon, they voted again for a Democrat. This was not 100 years ago, it was 50 years ago. Though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the election well.

What do you have against the tribes. The Federal government tells me I'm a tribal member. They made my family register as tribal members during the Dawes Rolls. Also, it wasn't 100 years ago. Every hear of George Wallace. Q: Who was the governor of Georgia when they dedicated Stone Mountain, the birth place of the Second KKK? A: Jimmy Carter

Stockholm syndrome

The federal government considers me to be a native American. I have the tribal papers to prove that by the way. I consider myself to be a human being. You would be surprised the benefits I could receive because of my status. I accept none of these benefits. I read history books.

So earlier I posted this image. Can't get more racist than appointing a know KKK member who defended racial murderers and filibustered anti-lunching legislation to the Supreme Court. So why am I carrying an image of this racist around in my pocket (dime)? Shouldn't we tear down all memorials of him? Shouldn't his name be struck from every government project and building? He is also the guy that signed into law the aid to families with dependent children act. An act the Daniel Patrick Moynihan said destroyed the black family. Shouldn't we do a thorough job eliminating government memorials to racists? Remember, I'm in favor of completely eliminating Confederate memorials.

So now we are on to white privilege. Whites don't have any privilege that all people shouldn't have. The fact non whites don't have the same privileges is called racial discrimination. I'm for eliminating racial discrimination so that all races have the same privileges. Those that speak about white privilege are arguing that privileges should be taken from whites so that no one has privileges. I don't see that as a positive or progressive stance. Does the same hold true with regard to the Nazi party? Am I a political bigot because I detest the Nazi party? How about Communist like Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Mao. I detest them as well. Does that make me a political bigot. How about Pinochet? I detest him as well. So if a bunch of progressives decided to use the following symbol for their new political party would you join? Edit: Swastika removed by site. So why would anyone belong to a party that uses this symbol? Or this one? Edit: Democratic Donkey removed by site (interesting correlation)

Not true. I'm simply pointing out who is responsible for racism in America today and how that legacy is impacting us today. Here's another example. I'll just leave the google link because the articles are so numerous. https://www.google.com/search?q=woodrow+wilson%2C+racism&oq=woodrow+wilson%2C+racism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4773.7443.0.8019.8.8.0.0.0.0.89.560.8.8.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.312...0j0i67k1j0i20k1j0i20i46k1j46i20k1.a1txqEQ96Wc

Who says I'm a racist? Show me a racist post I have ever made. I'm all in favor of tearing down every Confederate memorial in the country including those in national monuments like Gettysburg and Antietam. I would remove Confederate graves from Arlington National Cemetery. As a hiring manager I have hired people of all races, creeds, and genders. Part of the solution to any problem is acknowledging how we got into the problem. Here is an example of the history I'm talking about

The Democratic party maintained political dominance in this country decades if not a century by catering to racists. The KKK was founded by Democrats. Major trade unions, all Democratic party supporters, were all racist. There would have been no Charlottesville racist riot without the Democratic party. Democrats need to take some responsibility.

The Southern strategy is nothing but a minor footnote in the history of racism in America. The history of racism in America was written chapter and verse by the Democratic party. Nixon simply hoisted Hubert Humphrey on a petard carefully crafted by the Democratic party over 150 years. Perhaps one day there will be a prominent Democrat who honestly accepts their party's responsibility for promoting racism, but I doubt it. A simple statement admitting that we wouldn't be here today with regard to racism without the Democratic party. I don't let the Nazi party off the hook for there atrocities, why should I let the Democratic party off the hook for theirs?

Because it is important to note who firmly ingrained racism into the American culture and law.

"spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted" by Democrats.

You're right. Those nukes we dropped on Japan in WWII were just pin pricks. It's surprising the Japanese surrendered. Seeing as you are likely out of North Korea's range in South Eastern North Carolina you will be able to tell people in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc, that they are big sissies for complaining about getting hit by such a tiny nuke. What is that cheeto man in the white house even worried about? Right?

Perhaps you are not reading the news. The new little Kim has new toys. ICBMs topped with nukes capable of hitting much of the US. You think this is insignificant? All the previous presidents worked but failed to prevent this day from coming. The North Korean regime exists at the pleasure of China. It's actions are China's actions. It's time for China to step up and remove Kim and his ICBMs and nuke weapons.

My point point exactly. Particularly your last two sentences. China needs to be told explicitly that they can't stay out of a nuclear war started by their very close ally North Korea. If Tokyo or Seattle disappear, so will Beijing and Shanghai. It's unavoidable. We shouldn't pretend that it is not. Kennedy publicly made this point clear to the USSR. Trump should do the same to China. Pretending this is not so is foolish. China is risking this war right now by keeping the Kim's in power. It's time for China to choose.

North Korea is simply a puppet state of China. If China is trying to send a message to Washington, Trump should simply give them a JFK response. .Perhaps that response would get China to put its poodle North Korea on a short leash.

Well I did try to reply to all of the above posts directed at me today, but I just didn't have time. I'm off for my winter vacation to Hawaii tomorrow, returning on March 3. The only reason I am posting today is that so many of you seem to miss me when I'm not posting. That is particularly true of DrmDoc as can be seen from the above. I hope you, DrmDoc, won't miss me too much and can hold out until I return.

You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. Waste you time with investigations, hearings, and legal procedures. You haven't slowed Trump down yet. I don't think you are going to, particularly when you have nothing.

Like the email, these intercepted phone calls might just impact future elections. Who knows, maybe even the mid term elections. See you then. Here in the US, I believe as a result of the patriot act, the government can intercept international phone calls but there are law prohibiting the release of the US citizens name, or their part of the conversation. Violating such laws are felonies.

Well lets go back to your article. So all you have is bad optics. Trump has been in office for less than a month. Plenty of time to recover from bad optics. So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.