Thomas Sewell, A self made Man

[rigney]

On occasion I do run across something worth knowing and sharing, Sewell is that topic! How does a black man of such absolute integrity and who had the lowest of beginnings, ferret out the ineptness that is destroying our nation. Why? When so many white people have their heads planted so firmly in their own behinds that they can't see the trees for the forest?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

 

Thomas Sowell July 25, 2012

 

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

 

Even squirrels know enough to store nuts, so that they will have something to eat when food gets scarce. But the welfare state has spawned a whole class of people who spend everything they get when times are good, and look to others to provide for their food and other basic needs when times turn bad.

 

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans. But what does that mean, if the President of the United States can arbitrarily grant waivers, so that A, B and C have to obey the laws but X, Y and Z do not -- as with both ObamaCare and the immigration laws?

 

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States. The other report said that the American Olympic team has uniforms made in China. This latter report received far more attention, both in Congress and in the media.

 

People who lament gridlock in Washington, and express the pious hope that Democrats and Republicans would put aside their partisan conflicts, and cooperate to help the economy recover, implicitly assume that what the economy needs is more meddling by politicians, which is what brought on economic disaster in the first place. (Skeptics can read "The Housing Boom and Bust.")

 

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support -- kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as "racists."

 

One of the arguments for Medicare is that the elderly don't want to be a burden to their children. Apparently it is all right to be a burden to other people's children, who are paying taxes.

 

Those who talk as if more people going to college is automatically a Good Thing seldom show much interest in what actually goes on at college -- including far less time spent by students studying than in the past, and a proliferation of courses promoting a sense of grievance, entitlement or advanced navel-gazing and breast-beating.

 

One of the most dangerous trends of our times is making the truth socially unacceptable, or even illegal, with "hate speech" laws. It is supposed to be terrible, for example, to call an illegal alien an "illegal alien" or to call an Islamic terrorist an "Islamic terrorist." When the media refer to "undocumented" workers or to violence committed by "militants," who is kidding whom -- and why?

 

After the charismatic -- and disastrous -- Woodrow Wilson presidency, the voters did not elect another president in the next decade who could be considered the least bit charismatic. Let us hope that history repeats itself.

Edited August 9, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Ah, the next round of Obama bashing.

 

I enjoyed this part the best:

 

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States.

The same Pentagon that knew for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Let me do a little Bush bashing, or republican bashing, with some facts.

I'll put up a little youtube.

 

 

rigney, maybe even the right wing Americans are tired of the lies and manipulations to talk the USA into yet another war?

[rigney]

Ah, the next round of Obama bashing.

 

I enjoyed this part the best:

 

 

The same Pentagon that knew for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Let me do a little Bush bashing, or republican bashing, with some facts.

I'll put up a little youtube.

 

 

rigney, maybe even the right wing Americans are tired of the lies and manipulations to talk the USA into yet another war?

I didn't know Mr. Galloway was a part of American politics? But the I,I,I,I,I,Is do sound a bit familiar. Being quite honest and inquisitive, how does one like Mr. Gallway come by such a huge amount of classified information without there being a leak somewhere in our government, unless it is similar to the propaganda of Mr. Harry Reids information concerning Mitt Romneys taxes?

And will we ever leave the Bush bashing behind?

Edited August 9, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

He's a British member of parliament. They have their own sources of information, just like the Americans do.

[rigney]

He's a British member of parliament. They have their own sources of information, just like the Americans do.

I am aware of Mr. Gallways many hats. But where are the facts? Lies and accusations are easily made without facts, but the proof is in the pudding. Edited August 9, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I am aware Mr. Gallways many hats. But where are the facts? Lies and accusations are easily made without facts, but the proof is in the pudding.

Fantastic question! I was about to ask exactly the same about the opening post!

[rigney]

rigney, on 9 August 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not

only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States.

That statement alone shows me how clearly things are taken out of context. I didn't make the statement, but unless you look at it closely you would think so, the way Captain Panic presented it. It was actually a part of: "random thoughts on the passing scene" in the Sewell item. (third paragraph). It was also a new avenue on which to bash Bush.

 

Fantastic question! I was about to ask exactly the same about the opening post!

The opening post? Please do! And hopefuolly we might find a way of discussing it without bringing President Obama's transcripts into question? Edited August 9, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

rigney, on 9 August 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not

only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States.

That statement alone shows me how clearly things are taken out of context. I didn't make the statement, but unless you look at it closely you would think so, the way Captain Panic presented it. It was actually a part of: "random thoughts on the passing scene" in the Sewell item. (third paragraph). It was also a new avenue on which to bash Bush.

rigney, don't dodge the question. It is perfectly clear that those are not your words, but the words from some report, which you obviously didn't write.

 

The main issue is: where are the facts?

[rigney]

Just what question am I dodging friend, and for what facts are you looking?

Edited August 9, 2012 by rigney

[Jebus]

George Galloway is a dictator loving, terrorist sympathizing, hypocritical, morally inept bigot. The right has its fair share of delusions but the left seems to think co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists is not only possible but preferred.

[rigney]

George Galloway is a dictator loving, terrorist sympathizing, hypocritical, morally inept bigot. The right has its fair share of delusions but the left seems to think co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists is not only possible but preferred.

I'm not well versed in England's politics at all and have quit a bit of difficulty trying to understand our own system here in America. But when hearing a phoney rant and rave, I pretty well get thr picture. Here in the states when the left wing slams hell out of the right on an issue it is to be taken literally. When the right makes a statement, the left screams that it is nothing more than a pack of lies. Both sides tell some pretty tall talrs, but when they are proven to be lies, well I understand just as you with Mr. Galloway. I generally vote for both Democrats and Republicans, but I believe in the capitalistic system and will continue voting as I do so long as our present system is allowed to continues. My initial post has gone pretty far afield and I would like to get it back on it.

Mr. Sewell is the topic if anyomne would like to continue in that direction. And that is, how can this black man of such absolute integrity and born into the lowest form of poverty, ferret out the ineptness and hate that is destroying our nation. And why? When so many white people have their heads shoved so firmly up their own a**es that they can't see the trees for the forest?

Kids with ambition, willing to work hard and with a goal in mind can attain suscess if they press on and their leash is strong enough. Unleashed, it's a much larger chance of failure than success. Mr. Sewell had to make and face those chances alone since nothing was a given to him. Today we have pampered the system so much it is in a word, laughable. Yes, there are many good and diligently students persuing their dream while too many others just want to play in a la-la land. The lesh on this second group is unsnapped and their world is free to roam as long as someone else is paying the tab.

Edited August 10, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

Just what question am I dodging friend, and for what facts are you looking?

 

I believe that would be any facts to support your original post. What you are presenting here is not opinion. It's basically an entire post that could be labeled "citation needed".

 

There is a rule against soapboxing — making pronouncements rather than engaging in discussion — and in my personal opinion you are violating it. You have not helped anything by introducing a half-dozen disparate topics under the umbrella of a discussion of Thomas Seward (how is that relevant to Iran's nuclear program, for instance?). I doubt I'm the only one growing tired of this.

 

So, let's start with your first statement, that Obamacare violates the equal protection clause? This, despite the fact that the Supreme court upheld the law as constitutional. Explain yourself. Don't dodge the question. Answer it.

[rigney]

I believe that would be any facts to support your original post. What you are presenting here is not opinion. It's basically an entire post that could be labeled "citation needed".

 

There is a rule against soapboxing — making pronouncements rather than engaging in discussion — and in my personal opinion you are violating it. You have not helped anything by introducing a half-dozen disparate topics under the umbrella of a discussion of Thomas Seward (how is that relevant to Iran's nuclear program, for instance?). I doubt I'm the only one growing tired of this.

 

So, let's start with your first statement, that Obamacare violates the equal protection clause? This, despite the fact that the Supreme court upheld the law as constitutional. Explain yourself. Don't dodge the question. Answer it.

This post was not soap boxing but to draw attention to an honorable man and his ideals. Only wish that i could express myself with such confidence. But the crap our present government has placed on our country tells me his kind of honor is fast leaving us. That the Supreme Court upheld such garbage as Obamacare being constitutional was to get it off the table so that we could have damn good reason for the election come November. As soon as the Republican party gains control of both houses, this hair brained Democratic scheme will be gone. And that Obamacare being rammed through congress violates the equal protection clause? Well,it does. Protection is protection, but draining our tax system to pay for everyones healthcare is an "obamanation" to any healthcare system. This frivolous law mandated by a Democratic Congress demanding to do so will be gone shortly after the election and the supreme court can go back to functioning as normal. If my vision is incorrect, I will personally apologise to you. If it is correct, then you owe me one. Edited August 10, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

This post was not soap boxing but to draw attention to an honorable man and his ideals. Only wish that i could express myself with such confidence. But the crap our present government has placed on our country tells me his kind of honor is fast leaving us. That the Supreme Court upheld such garbage as Obamacare being constitutional was to get it off the table so that we could have damn good reason for the election come November. As soon as the Republican party gains control of both houses, this hair brained Democratic scheme will be gone.

 

Aye, there's the rub. It's basically a Republican scheme that the Dems co-opted, hoping for support from the right. Romney did it as law first, and the seeds of it came from the Republicans before that. They just started hating it when the Dems proposed it.

 

And that Obamacare being rammed through congress violates the equal protection clause? Well,it does. Protection is protection, but draining our tax system to pay for everyones healthcare is an "obamanation" to any healthcare system. This frivolous law mandated by a Democratic Congress demanding to do so will be gone shortly after the election and the supreme court can go back to functioning as normal. If my vision is incorrect, I will personally apologise to you. If it is correct, then you owe me one.

Excuse me? What part of legally-elected representatives and Senators voting on a bill, signed into law by the president violates equal protection? What part of "if you don't have insurance you have to pay a tax" violates equal protection? (Income level is not a protected class, and taxing is legal and constitutional). If deficit spending is unconstitutional, then you must have a huge problem with Bush II, because he inherited a balanced budget. But that's really irrelevant, because the budget office says that Obamacare will save money. You're repeating a lie that someone has told.

 

Not liking a law is nowhere near the same as being unconstitutional. It's a convenient excuse, but it's another lie.

 

So what part of your post is correct?

[rigney]

Aye, there's the rub. It's basically a Republican scheme that the Dems co-opted, hoping for support from the right. Romney did it as law first, and the seeds of it came from the Republicans before that. They just started hating it when the Dems proposed it.

It may have been alright to try it in a state, but not an entire country.

 

Excuse me? What part of legally-elected representatives and Senators voting on a bill, signed into law by the president violates equal protection? What part of "if you don't have insurance you have to pay a tax" violates equal protection? (Income level is not a protected class, and taxing is legal and constitutional). If deficit spending is unconstitutional, then you must have a huge problem with Bush II, because he inherited a balanced budget. But that's really irrelevant, because the budget office says that Obamacare will save money. You're repeating a lie that someone has told.

Equal protection is exactly that, not as a means to screw a nation into a situation where they the people have no control. And who will be the benefactor of Obamacare and who will save money?

Not liking a law is nowhere near the same as being unconstitutional. It's a convenient excuse, but it's another lie.

A convenient excuse? I hear it daily when a democrat speaks, especially a blathering and honrable liar like Senator Reid.

So what part of your post is correct?

All of it, but since I can't lie like a democrat, I'm doomed.

Edited August 10, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

George Galloway is a dictator loving, terrorist sympathizing, hypocritical, morally inept bigot. The right has its fair share of delusions but the left seems to think co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists is not only possible but preferred.

Galloway has, shall we say, a problem with his judgement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU

However, there's a difference between visiting Saddam and supporting him.

 

And I invite you to recall that the second biggest contributor of troops to the war in Iraq was Britain, and we had a left wing government at the time (albeit not as Left as I'd have liked).

 

(Unless, of course, you meant that Blair + co's decision to lie and mislead in support of Bush, rather than to support the UN's search for weapons, was "co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists")

 

BTW, who was it that trained and installed Saddam and the Taliban in their positions of power?

Of course, I remember now; it was those damnably communist Americans.

[Jebus]

Galloway has, shall we say, a problem with his judgement.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=I1NIuCt72bU

However, there's a difference between visiting Saddam and supporting him.

 

And I invite you to recall that the second biggest contributor of troops to the war in Iraq was Britain, and we had a left wing government at the time (albeit not as Left as I'd have liked).

 

(Unless, of course, you meant that Blair + co's decision to lie and mislead in support of Bush, rather than to support the UN's search for weapons, was "co-existence with totalitarian, theocratic fascists")

 

BTW, who was it that trained and installed Saddam and the Taliban in their positions of power?

Of course, I remember now; it was those damnably communist Americans.

 

This is going off topic but to be honest, I don't think there was any real topic to begin with.

 

I'm not that familiar with England's politics. I was mainly criticizing individual protestors who demanded that Saddam stay in power. The US helped the afghans fight off the Russians, but there was no Taliban back then. Many of the afghans we supported in the 80's were of the Northern Alliance who continue to despise and fight against the Taliban. BTW, I never mentioned Afghanistan, only Iraq. Yes, America is responsible for propping up the Ba'ath regime in the first place, all the more reason for the Americans to fix their mistake and owe up to their responsibility. Keep in mind that America is a democracy, its regime changes every 4-8 years and I wouldn't criticize the present government for the actions of the previous one, that would just be ridiculous.

 

 

 

[rigney]

This is going off topic but to be honest, I don't think there was any real topic to begin with.

 

I'm not that familiar with England's politics. I was mainly criticizing individual protestors who demanded that Saddam stay in power. The US helped the afghans fight off the Russians, but there was no Taliban back then. Many of the afghans we supported in the 80's were of the Northern Alliance who continue to despise and fight against the Taliban. BTW, I never mentioned Afghanistan, only Iraq. Yes, America is responsible for propping up the Ba'ath regime in the first place, all the more reason for the Americans to fix their mistake and owe up to their responsibility. Keep in mind that America is a democracy, its regime changes every 4-8 years and I wouldn't criticize the present government for the actions of the previous one, that would just be ridiculous.

I would not blame the present administration for the past administrations mistakes either. They have made enough on their own. And the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy even though it appears that way at this time.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_republic_and_a_democracy

And my real purpose of the issue was trying to understand the philosophy of educated black men becoming Republicans. Does anyone have a plausible answer?

Sometime in July I posted this fine history on Booker T. Washington. 90 some people looked at it without a question posed or even a theory to this mans greatness. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67987-george-washington-carver/

I also posted on Colonel West. Only when it is salacious or dealing with politics does it seem to jar the sleepy into sitting up..

Edited August 10, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Perhaps skin color is not the dominant factor in choosing a political worldview. That would be my guess.

[Jebus]

+1^^

 

There are plenty of successful African Americans on the right. Frederick Douglas is my favourite. The fact that the Republican party was responsible for the abolition of slavery might also have something to do with it.

 

I'm not sure how you would discuss about such persons though, it just seems weird to devote a thread on it.

[rigney]

name='Jebus' timestamp='1344636485' post='696274']

+1^^

There are plenty of successful African Americans on the right. Frederick Douglas is my favourite. The fact that the Republican party was responsible for the abolition of slavery might also have something to do with it.

I'm not sure how you would discuss about such persons though, it just seems weird to devote a thread on it.

 

I suppose my conflict with such reasoning is that other than Kennedy and Johnson few whites has went to bat for blacks. And that, a hundred years after their freedom, if you could call it that. No, I believe it goes much deeper than that. If you look closely, almost to a man each of these people pulled themselves to their feet and neve once yelled for help. Sewell probably gave many explinations why the many exemptions to minorities is not in their best interests.

Edited August 10, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

I was mainly criticizing individual protestors who demanded that Saddam stay in power.

Exactly who were those people?

I know that some people were quite clearly expressing the opinion that diplomatic to depose him means should have been tried first, but I don't know anyone who said he should stay.

[Jebus]

Exactly who were those people?

I know that some people were quite clearly expressing the opinion that diplomatic to depose him means should have been tried first, but I don't know anyone who said he should stay.

 

Several thousand protestors.

 

They tried diplomacy for over 10 years, in those 10 years Saddam built a palace in every province for himself while parading dead children as though the cause were from the sanctions. We later learned doctors were forced to keep dead children frozen.

[John Cuthber]

Several thousand protestors.

 

They tried diplomacy for over 10 years, in those 10 years Saddam built a palace in every province for himself while parading dead children as though the cause were from the sanctions. We later learned doctors were forced to keep dead children frozen.

As I said, I saw plenty of people protest that a war isn't a good way to deal with problems.

What evidence was there that they actually supported Saddam (and, since it was your original assertion) what evidence was there that they were left wing?

 

Did you go and ask them?

Were they carrying placards saying "CPGB supports Saddam"?

Or did you just make up the asserted link because it suited you?

[Jebus]

As I said, I saw plenty of people protest that a war isn't a good way to deal with problems.

What evidence was there that they actually supported Saddam (and, since it was your original assertion) what evidence was there that they were left wing?

 

Did you go and ask them?

Were they carrying placards saying "CPGB supports Saddam"?

Or did you just make up the asserted link because it suited you?

 

 

I never said they supported Saddam. I said they were demanding he stay in power. If you are going to protest against the removal of a dictator, that pretty well implies that he should stay in power, since no other force is going to remove him from power. Well they didn't mention any credible ideas anyway...

 

A lot of the protests were organized by socialist (left wing) organizations. Some on the right were protesting against as well but it definitely was not their slogan. It was Obamas though - to remove troops from Iraq.

 

George Galloway however actually saluted Saddam Hussein.