View Full Version : Obama plans instute forced servitude
Narcissus
11-09-2008, 05:54 PM
no, thats not what reverse racism means...infact, that meaning makes no sense.... even tho i'm sure you would like that to be the meaning.
It means what i just explained to you...and thats how it is used not just by whites...but by blacks as well....
That meaning makes no sense? Ohhh ... I get it. So you are just outright denying that whites can be discriminated against or that it is accepted by our society today. Great argument.
""No bigotry but our bigotry!!!""
I've only ever heard the term used as described below:
it is an idea that expresses our cultural preponderance to go so far on a spectrum of 'racism' that we have gone over the deep end on the opposite side generally seen as 'a racist view'. That is why, when you read so many posts here ... you find it is rife with fantastical comments made that, were the races switched', would start a 'hunt down the evil whitey' attack.
Whatever ... I can't deal with such absolute, indisputable arguments such as yours given here. I'll be back later tonight, but I need a freaking break.
Narcissus
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-09-2008, 06:02 PM
That meaning makes no sense? Ohhh ... I get it. So you are just outright denying that whites can be discriminated against or that it is accepted by our society today. Great argument.
""No bigotry but our bigotry!!!""
I've only ever heard the term used as described below:
Whatever ... I can't deal with such absolute, indisputable arguments such as yours given here. I'll be back later tonight, but I need a freaking break.
Narcissus
NO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.... ugh... the whole fuckin point of me saying its stupid for ANYONE to use it is because EVERYONE CAN BE FUCKIN RACIST...NOT JUST WHITES...and thats why i said that it makes you as a white person look like a dumbass by using it...your calling your own race the owners of racism....
...obviously...u didn't get it
LizardQueen
11-09-2008, 06:39 PM
Narcissus, no one here is trying to claim that whites never get discriminated against. I've felt it before. I know it happens. Not just from blacks but from many other immigrant/minority communities as well. Racism is a fact of life but in America, the majority of people are white, and thus, white -> minority racism is much more "in your face" than vice versa.
Saying that white privilege is an absurd term is hilarious. In fact, you directly contradict yourself by agreeing with me in your very own post. If I were to move to Japan, I would experience Japanese privilege. In Namibia, black privilege. Facts have it that the US is predominantly white.
You, sir, have been twisting everyone's words and starting fights where there were non previously, declaring everyone who critically examines white/black race issues a racist.
I'm getting tempted to hit the ignore button but your hyperbolic outrage is bordering on hilarious.
grindonme
11-09-2008, 08:01 PM
NO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.... ugh... the whole fuckin point of me saying its stupid for ANYONE to use it is because EVERYONE CAN BE FUCKIN RACIST...NOT JUST WHITES...and thats why i said that it makes you as a white person look like a dumbass by using it...your calling your own race the owners of racism....
...obviously...u didn't get it
Do yourself a HUGE FAVOR and stop responding to these threads. I read them and responded in a few threads but some of the stuff i've read is so outrageous and others so long and drawn out that i think its better to just let it ride
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Do yourself a HUGE FAVOR and stop responding to these threads. I read them and responded in a few threads but some of the stuff i've read is so outrageous and others so long and drawn out that i think its better to just let it ride
i tried...but its just soo hard to ignore...
grindonme
11-09-2008, 08:15 PM
i tried...but its just soo hard to ignore...
LOL i know it is, i've started a response so many times and then said forget it because i realized people are just making threads and posts just to try and get a hostile reaction from other posters. This is what i was told last night after a post i made
your point is made even more legit by the men in saggy white shirts throwing money at a black girl's ass. Good show, chap.
she had no real response to it so she just said that and like you just explained in your revious post on what you meant by whites shouldn't being using the reverse racism term, do you think dude is gonna come back and say "oh ok i get what you're saying now"..lol Hell no he is gonna find something to say to try and get a hostile response and thats what has been happening in all the Obama related threads in this section.
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-09-2008, 08:19 PM
LOL i know it is, i've started a response so many times and then said forget it because i realized people are just making threads and posts just to try and get a hostile reaction from other posters. Like you just explained in your revious post on what you meant by whites shouldn't being using the reverse racism term, do you think dude is gonna come back and say "oh ok i get what you're saying now"..lol Hell no he is gonna find something to say to try and get a hostile response and thats what has been happening in all the Obama related threads in this section.
you are right... i'm gonna try again to ignore it
thank you ;D
flickad
11-09-2008, 10:59 PM
NO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.... ugh... the whole fuckin point of me saying its stupid for ANYONE to use it is because EVERYONE CAN BE FUCKIN RACIST...NOT JUST WHITES...and thats why i said that it makes you as a white person look like a dumbass by using it...your calling your own race the owners of racism....
...obviously...u didn't get it
What you're getting at is that there is only one term, 'racist', meaning 'discriminating on the basis of race', right? If that is correct, than the term 'reverse racism' is a nonsense one. You'd use the term 'racist' for discrimination on the basis of colour or ethnicity, whether or not the victim of that discrimination is black or white.
Do you get it now, Narcissist?
Narcissus
11-10-2008, 09:36 AM
NO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.... ugh... the whole fuckin point of me saying its stupid for ANYONE to use it is because EVERYONE CAN BE FUCKIN RACIST...NOT JUST WHITES...and thats why i said that it makes you as a white person look like a dumbass by using it...your calling your own race the owners of racism....
...obviously...u didn't get it
Reply is below and I did get it. You are just incapable of reading or understanding what I wrote. I simplify it for you ...
Narcissus, no one here is trying to claim that whites never get discriminated against.
Re-read what was written above and see it through the context of my not realizing that 'Ms. Mia Roberts' was unable to understand my definition and explanation.
Saying that white privilege is an absurd term is hilarious. In fact, you directly contradict yourself by agreeing with me in your very own post. If I were to move to Japan, I would experience Japanese privilege. In Namibia, black privilege. Facts have it that the US is predominantly white.
I did not contradict myself in any way. Agreeing that a race has a greater comfort level with people of the same race does not, in any way, contradict what I said. Stop <snipping> parts of my argument and using it out of context. Saying that I agreed, and then not including any of the things that I said which supports my view is a childish tactic.
Mother: "You can watch t.v. if you eat your dinner."
Child at bedtime: "I didn't get to watch t.v."
Mother: "You didn't eat your dinner."
Child throwing a fit: "But you said I could watch t.v."
You, sir, have been twisting everyone's words and starting fights where there were non previously, declaring everyone who critically examines white/black race issues a racist.
I'm getting tempted to hit the ignore button but your hyperbolic outrage is bordering on hilarious.
I haven't twisted anyone's words. Show me a single example ... should be easy as you imply that I've done it on several occasions.
As far as calling people racist ... I admit to using the wrong terminology. I should have called them bigots. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. =P
I love the fact that you are in a position to tell me how outraged I actually am. Or did you use the term 'hyperbolic' to add credence to what you were saying because it sounded good?
Argue my points rather than misrepresenting what I say and then using bland, generic, and broad statements to dismiss me. Please ... :D
Do yourself a HUGE FAVOR and stop responding to these threads. I read them and responded in a few threads but some of the stuff i've read is so outrageous and others so long and drawn out that i think its better to just let it ride
You make two points:
1. Some of these posts are outrageous.
I agree!
2. Discussions on a subject are long.
Isn't that a good thing?
LOL i know it is, i've started a response so many times and then said forget it because i realized people are just making threads and posts just to try and get a hostile reaction from other posters. This is what i was told last night after a post i made
she had no real response to it so she just said that and like you just explained in your revious post on what you meant by whites shouldn't being using the reverse racism term, do you think dude is gonna come back and say "oh ok i get what you're saying now"..lol Hell no he is gonna find something to say to try and get a hostile response and thats what has been happening in all the Obama related threads in this section.
There have been several people 'trolling'. I do hope that no one applies that to me. I'm not trying to 'troll', I'm trying to explain my viewpoint and show glaring holes in the viewpoints of those that disagree with me. I get upset and irritated and 'lash out' a bit, but when talking about such a very heated topic ... that is to be expected.
What you're getting at is that there is only one term, 'racist', meaning 'discriminating on the basis of race', right? If that is correct, than the term 'reverse racism' is a nonsense one. You'd use the term 'racist' for discrimination on the basis of colour or ethnicity, whether or not the victim of that discrimination is black or white.
Do you get it now, Narcissist?
I 'got it' ... numerous posts ago. What you, and many other single minded people on here have failed to do is 'get' what I said. I quote it below and make it easy and simple to understand to help better avoid confusion.
Here is what I've said numerous times:
The term 'reverse-racism' is not a real term ... it is an idea that expresses our cultural preponderance to go so far on a spectrum of 'racism' that we have gone over the deep end on the opposite side generally seen as 'a racist view'. That is why, when you read so many posts here ... you find it is rife with fantastical comments made that, were the races switched', would start a 'hunt down the evil whitey' attack.
Narcissus
I have made it abundantly clear that, to me, that is and always has been the definition. Obviously that has forced those unable to understand what it meant, to get confused by my comments. To solve that problem, I will redefine it in simpler terms.
I realize that 'reverse-racism' is not a word used out of a dictionary. I have always heard it used to mean that black people were displaying bigotry towards white people in a way that everyone is A-ok with. That means that it is a word used to display to black people that the very thing that the black people claim to hate most is being used by them, usually a lot. Because this situation is a bad situation for white people to be in, and is frustrating because of the double standard being used ... I believe that white people created the term to make black people be aware of the double standard they are using.
Now can you guys understand what I'm saying? If so, please go back and re-read my posts with that new knowledge. The fact that it is not a real term means nothing. The fact that black people, who refuse to admit it's existence, have twisted it into something white people should be ashamed of (a ridiculous claim that shows that white people shouldn't use the word because it demonstrates a claim to ownership and fatherhood to all racism), means nothing.
Narcissus
LizardQueen
11-10-2008, 09:43 AM
""No bigotry but our bigotry!!!""
I'll be back later tonight, but I need a freaking break.
Narcissus
Black people, due to their race, are offered so many more incentives and 'helping hands' that it is revolting.
That is the exact kind of racist banter I expected. Right out of the book of hate, chapter Rev. Wright, page guilt ridden.
I doubt that many white girls are clutching their purses when a well dressed black man gets in an elevator with them whom they work with. I call bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit.
So in your hate mongering mind, you are blaming white people...
That damn white devil! Look what he is doing to you?!? Give me a fucking break.
I've heard racial bigotry before, but never like what you describe ... although it is still nothing compared to the opposing hate.
Narcissus
Uhh, as I said... hyperbolic outrage.
Your responses were unwarranted by the posts you replied to.
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-10-2008, 09:50 AM
i'm done......
i can no longer respond back to any ignorant or retarded comments on this forum.... i hope the mods step in because this thread has become OT and out of control....
Narcissus
11-10-2008, 10:53 AM
Uhh, as I said... hyperbolic outrage.
Your responses were unwarranted by the posts you replied to.
First of all, as I said: realizing my inability to predict 'Ms. Mia Roberts' and her inability to read and understand my explanation on the definition of the word, please re-read my response to her post. Your first quote was a misunderstanding on my part ... based on the assumption that she actually understood me (I'm being generous and giving her the benefit of the doubt).
Hyperbolic = exaggeration
My response was exaggerated how? I cannot feel fervor towards a subject without you labeling it an exaggeration? You are not me, so please don't presume to tell me what I feel or what level of emotion I have in regards to a thing.
I find it beyond hilarious that I'm told I am incapable of understanding 'the black man', but in the exact same thread I can be told that my 'outrage' at an issue and the biased views involved are an exaggeration.
i'm done......
i can no longer respond back to any ignorant or retarded comments on this forum.... i hope the mods step in because this thread has become OT and out of control....
Darn. I'm going to miss your bigoted, biased, and incoherent comments that are, apparently, impossible to defend. :waves:
Narcissus
LizardQueen
11-10-2008, 12:30 PM
Hyperbolic = exaggeration
My response was exaggerated how? I cannot feel fervor towards a subject without you labeling it an exaggeration? You are not me, so please don't presume to tell me what I feel or what level of emotion I have in regards to a thing.
I find it beyond hilarious that I'm told I am incapable of understanding 'the black man', but in the exact same thread I can be told that my 'outrage' at an issue and the biased views involved are an exaggeration.
*sigh* You are still misreading me. Of course I have no authority to say your statements are exaggerated compared to how you actually feel, but your "exaggerated outrage" at some of the pretty calm things kikidejavu and others have said is surprising.
Eric Stoner
11-10-2008, 02:11 PM
Everybody PLEASE ! Please take a deep breath and try to calm down.
There is no reason why these issues cannot be discussed in a calm manner and on an intellectual plane.
Let's ALL try to avoid personalizing and try to respect those who hold opinions different from our own.
Melonie
11-10-2008, 05:27 PM
circling back on topic, according to Obama's 'transition' website change.gov , these involuntary community service proposals / requirements have suddenly 'disappeared'.
Melonie
11-11-2008, 03:34 AM
You are actually making the same point ... that societal groups that choose to 'hang on to' all aspects of their cultural divide and their ancient resentments generally wind up being either the cause or the recipients of deadly violence (or both).
VegasPrincess
11-11-2008, 04:41 PM
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fileadmin/historyLearningSite/hitler1.jpg
In case your Deutsch is a bit rusty ... "Every girl belongs to us"
that's DISGUSTING. WTF Melonie? . First of all, this was an IDEA that was being tossed around, that's all don't get your panties in a wad. Second of all if you can see any sense of logicality in compairing less than an hour of community service a WEEK to the horror that was Hitler Youth, there is seriously something wrong with you.
davka
11-11-2008, 10:44 PM
I couldn't graduate high school unless I did 50 hours of community service. It was a requirement for our high school. This is nothing new.
MichelleJade
11-12-2008, 12:04 AM
100 hours in college is way extreme. I try to do 20 hours during the spring and fall semester, if you add in summer that's already 60 hours. Going to school full time and working full time takes up a lot of time! I just think it's a little unrealistic. I had way more time in high school when I didn't have to work.
Melonie
11-12-2008, 02:39 AM
that's DISGUSTING. WTF Melonie? . First of all, this was an IDEA that was being tossed around, that's all don't get your panties in a wad.
As I said when that image was originally posted, the point was about the proposal constituting a basic loss of freedom. At least a loss of freedom for those who are insufficiently 'rich' to buy their way out of future gov't obligations. Granted that this initial proposal by it self was a small matter, but it was nonetheless a step down a 'slippery slope'.
I realize that some younger Americans may have trouble visualizing the possibilibies of the gov't taking additional steps down that 'slippery slope'. I'll give you one from US history. During the Vietnam War there was still a military draft i.e. a gov't obligation. However, there were also draft deferments for young men who could afford to enroll in college ... allowing the sons of the rich and powerful to avoid being sent to war. After the 'injustice' of this situation was pointed out, America changed many laws (among them cancelling the draft and expanding college financing possibilities) to remove it. However, this latest proposal is a step BACKWARD in the direction of re-establishing privelege for the rich !!!
Genevive
11-12-2008, 04:42 AM
Taken from BarackObama.com:
*
Barack Obama will enable all Americans to serve:
Obama and Biden will expand AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, engage retiring Americans, and set up an America's Voice Initiative to send Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages to expand our public diplomacy.
*
Integrate service into learning:
Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
*
Invest in the nonprofit sector:
Obama and Biden will create a Social Investment Fund Network to use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding. They will create an agency dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/
Miss_Luscious
11-12-2008, 05:42 AM
100 hours in college is way extreme. I try to do 20 hours during the spring and fall semester, if you add in summer that's already 60 hours. Going to school full time and working full time takes up a lot of time! I just think it's a little unrealistic. I had way more time in high school when I didn't have to work.
You get paid to do it in college though. It's not mandatory.
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-12-2008, 05:47 AM
i could do it...thats like workin 3 hours a week on the weekend and gettin paid 40 an hour, tax free towards my education
i would find a way to get my ass up on sunday morning and do that shit!
LizardQueen
11-12-2008, 07:39 AM
Yeah, I would definitely do it!
Dirty Ernie
11-12-2008, 08:49 AM
As I said when that image was originally posted, the point was about the proposal constituting a basic loss of freedom... Granted that this initial proposal by it self was a small matter, but it was nonetheless a step down a 'slippery slope'.
I love all the hand wringing over college students feeding the homeless or cleaning up a park 2 hours a week.
Where was your concern over the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus, acts of torture, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, the expansion of power of the executive branch, or the polticization of the DOJ?
This was not a slippery slope, but a sheer cliff. And the outgoing administration was at the edge of the cliff tossing freedoms over, with their defenders cheering them on.
Kellydancer
11-12-2008, 01:36 PM
I don't see the problem. I had to do community servide to graduate both high school and college. In fact in college I had to take a seminar all about community service (I created a garage sale to help animals). Too many kids are selfish and this would help them realize they aren't the only people who matter. I also support those on welfare being forced to do community service too as part of their benefits (though I don't believe that's been mentioned by Obama).
bem401
11-12-2008, 01:41 PM
Just imagine if a Republican made such proposals. The leftists would rake him over the coals for it, especially if it was W.
LizardQueen
11-12-2008, 01:56 PM
Just imagine if a Republican made such proposals. The leftists would rake him over the coals for it, especially if it was W.
I definitely disagree with this seeing as it has no logical basis or situational example.
Lucy in the Sky
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
Hmmm. Interesting.
The people who in this last election went with the party that claimed themselves as the ONLY ones who are "Country First" are now bitching and moaning about even just consideration of these civil service styled work/study programs.
So much for them being "Country First". Oh well, I always knew that claim was just a bunch of hot air anyway.
Oh well, I always knew it was a bunch of hot air anyway.
bem401
11-12-2008, 02:50 PM
I definitely disagree with this seeing as it has no logical basis or situational example.
Imagine if Bush had tried to initiate a program where liberal institutions ( such as schools and universities ) had to enforce participation in public service instruments created and managed by his adsministration. Are you really so naive as to think they'd be running around saying "what a great idea!"? No, they'd be screaming " he'll be drafting soldiers next!".
LizardQueen
11-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Imagine if Bush had tried to initiate a program where liberal institutions ( such as schools and universities ) had to enforce participation in public service instruments created and managed by his adsministration
which would trade broke young college students government aid money for tution in return for some community service. Honestly I'd be a fan if Bush had passed that, along with the prescription drugs for elders. IMO I would think Republicans would appreciate a social program where people actually have to earn their share of the payoff.
I'm sure you understand what Obama actually is proposing, right?
hockeybobby
11-12-2008, 04:17 PM
I love all the hand wringing over college students feeding the homeless or cleaning up a park 2 hours a week.
Where was your concern over the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus, acts of torture, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, the expansion of power of the executive branch, or the polticization of the DOJ?
This was not a slippery slope, but a sheer cliff. And the outgoing administration was at the edge of the cliff tossing freedoms over, with their defenders cheering them on.
+1 good post.
Narcissus
11-12-2008, 04:25 PM
Mandatory service, listlessly aimed at the poor and under-privileged, is wrong on so many fronts ...
'Country first' is a great mantra to run around saying, but I feel that 'Freedom first' is (or should be) considered inherent. Consider that for a moment. To claim 'Country first', without any implied and/or inherent modes of operation, is fanatical and misguided.
If you assume that ' Country first' is without inherent elements automatically assumed, then you could say that if the person was against totalitarianism ... then they were full of 'hot air'. Yes, that is an extreme example, but I am trying to demonstrate a point. The implied meaning in that statement has to be considered.
Also, why is every item brought up turned into a partisan debate? Hate both parties equally as they are both self-serving and not 'for the people'. I disagree with the dems more often than the repubs because I lean conservative on a lot of issues, but the fact is they have both screwed us time and time again (and will continue that behavior if we allow it - the bail-outs as an example).
Narcissus
VegasPrincess
11-12-2008, 04:29 PM
^^^
I'm confused as how this is directed to the poor and underpriveleged? It's mandatory for all highschools, and if you do it in college you get paid towards your education, and as an adult a tax write off? Doesnt sound so gregious to me, just sayin.
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-12-2008, 04:51 PM
Mandatory service, listlessly aimed at the poor and under-privileged, is wrong on so many fronts ...
'Country first' is a great mantra to run around saying, but I feel that 'Freedom first' is (or should be) considered inherent. Consider that for a moment. To claim 'Country first', without any implied and/or inherent modes of operation, is fanatical and misguided.
If you assume that ' Country first' is without inherent elements automatically assumed, then you could say that if the person was against totalitarianism ... then they were full of 'hot air'. Yes, that is an extreme example, but I am trying to demonstrate a point. The implied meaning in that statement has to be considered.
Also, why is every item brought up turned into a partisan debate? Hate both parties equally as they are both self-serving and not 'for the people'. I disagree with the dems more often than the repubs because I lean conservative on a lot of issues, but the fact is they have both screwed us time and time again (and will continue that behavior if we allow it - the bail-outs as an example).
Narcissus
its not any more mandatory....then are educational systems...
if i was forced as a kid to go to school.... i don't think its any worse to force kids to help out with thier community...
and its mandatory in most private schools anyway...
in college, its not mandatory
as an adult, its not mandatory...
so how is this forced servitude?
Narcissus
11-12-2008, 07:45 PM
If you are poor, you need help going to college. To receive benefits from the government (the vast majority of benefits helping under-privileged families attend college) ... mandatory service for poor and underprivileged.
The same applies with the elderly.
As far as middle school/high school students, the only good reasoning is that it teaches them responsibility and good morals ... the job of parents, not government.
Like I said, I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
Narcissus
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-12-2008, 09:48 PM
If you are poor, you need help going to college. To receive benefits from the government (the vast majority of benefits helping under-privileged families attend college) ... mandatory service for poor and underprivileged.
The same applies with the elderly.
As far as middle school/high school students, the only good reasoning is that it teaches them responsibility and good morals ... the job of parents, not government.
Like I said, I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
Narcissus
the government regulates what the child is taught (except in private schools...which have mandatory community service hours needed to graduate...hmmm)...so teaching a child responsbility and helping thier community...could be considered an important part of the school curriculum
and that was the dumbest arguement ever....students need money for college so they are being "forced" into working... bull shit.... most students have to do certian community service hours anyway to be awarded most academic scholarships in the first damn place... no one is forcing anything... if you want to get the money another way...then do it... this is just another option...there is no fuckin mandatory service...its not mandatory for them to go to school...so how is it "mandatory" for them to work in thier community
you know what, its not even really community service... its a community job... you are getting paid for the hours you do... you are doing something in order to recieve something in return
and did obama say only poor people were allowed to benifit from this... you are fuckin retarded UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who the fuck is saying this is "forced servitude"????? its really pissing me off because now you can see that people are one thier hands and knees DIGGING for reasons to hate obama... its sickenning...
FORCED SERVITUDE MY FUCKIN ASS....
Narcissus
11-12-2008, 10:47 PM
the government regulates what the child is taught (except in private schools...which have mandatory community service hours needed to graduate...hmmm)...so teaching a child responsbility and helping thier community...could be considered an important part of the school curriculum
and that was the dumbest arguement ever....students need money for college so they are being "forced" into working... bull shit.... most students have to do certian community service hours anyway to be awarded most academic scholarships in the first damn place... no one is forcing anything... if you want to get the money another way...then do it... this is just another option...there is no fuckin mandatory service...its not mandatory for them to go to school...so how is it "mandatory" for them to work in thier community
you know what, its not even really community service... its a community job... you are getting paid for the hours you do... you are doing something in order to recieve something in return
and did obama say only poor people were allowed to benifit from this... you are fuckin retarded UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who the fuck is saying this is "forced servitude"????? its really pissing me off because now you can see that people are one thier hands and knees DIGGING for reasons to hate obama... its sickenning...
FORCED SERVITUDE MY FUCKIN ASS....
Can you not control yourself enough to have a simple debate without falling back on insults and personal attacks? I kept getting pissed as well and rather than continue that pattern, I took a day (almost two) off from posting so I could cool down.
Look, this is simple. You can name it anything you like. You can compare it to anything you like. You can try and justify it any way you like. The facts are: this almost exclusively affects poor, underprivileged people ... this is mandatory for those people to go to college ... this is mandatory for those people to get benefits when they are elderly ... this is a step towards social programs that move our country away from a capitalistic society.
Those are the facts and regardless of how you wrap it up in words that have a positive connotation, those facts do not change. This is a step towards a Saul Alinsky stylized government ... which unless you are an extremist radical, is a bad, bad thing.
Rather than admit that maybe they were hoodwinked by a fast talker (Obama), people are going to great lengths to defend him because they don't want to be proven wrong. Those same people adamantly promote any policy changes he wants to make to demonstrate their loyal support. Obama knows this and is using it to start fulfilling his agenda, quietly and baby step by baby step.
If you still trust the guy completely, look (without bias) at the decisions that he has already made that conflict with his 'promises' and you will see what I mean.
Narcissus
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-12-2008, 10:52 PM
ITS NOT MANDATORY.....UGH....why am i having a debate with people who don't know the meaning of the word mandatory.... its really sad...
if they said i can't go to college without doing community service... thats mandatory
if they offer me an OPPORTUNITY to make some money towards my college education..... thats not mandatory...its a simple concept....
this is like arguing with someone about if the sky is blue or not.... if you think its green... you are gonna always think its green... all i can do is look at you and say "dumbass"... cause there is no way in hell to convince you that its blue
WHY DO I ANGER MYSELF SO WITH THESE POSTS...ARGH
MichelleJade
11-12-2008, 11:59 PM
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1753746
And then everyone should also look at Miss_Luscious's signature.
Narcissus
11-13-2008, 12:14 AM
ITS NOT MANDATORY.....UGH....why am i having a debate with people who don't know the meaning of the word mandatory.... its really sad...
if they said i can't go to college without doing community service... thats mandatory
if they offer me an OPPORTUNITY to make some money towards my college education..... thats not mandatory...its a simple concept....
this is like arguing with someone about if the sky is blue or not.... if you think its green... you are gonna always think its green... all i can do is look at you and say "dumbass"... cause there is no way in hell to convince you that its blue
WHY DO I ANGER MYSELF SO WITH THESE POSTS...ARGH
No matter how simple I make things, I cannot seem to get my point across to you. This time I will go step-by-step ...
Poor and underprivileged people cannot afford to pay for a college education ...
Some poor and underprivileged people would like to go to college so that they will no longer be poor and underprivileged people ...
The only way that poor and underprivileged people can go to college is through the use of things like grants, student loans and scholarships ...
Our government is the main supplier of those programs that allow poor and underprivileged people to attend college ...
Our government is proposing that to receive those programs, people will now be required to perform services they deem 'worthy' ...
So for the vast number of poor and underprivileged people to be able to attend college, they must perform those services ...
Something that is required (the services) can also be called mandatory or obligatory ...
So for the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people that want to attend college, it is mandatory service or even mandatory servitude ...
Wealthy, privileged people do not need government programs to attend college ...
Wealthy, privileged people therefore are not required to do government services ...
So for wealthy, privileged people that want to go to college, it is not mandatory service ...
Therefore wealthy people have no mandatory services to attend college and the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people do ...
Now, apply those same basic principles to old poor and underprivileged people looking for the many programs offered them by the government ...
So as I have been saying ... I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
EDIT: This was posted while I was writing my reply:
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1753746
And then everyone should also look at Miss_Luscious's signature.
Narcissus
flickad
11-13-2008, 02:18 AM
I love all the hand wringing over college students feeding the homeless or cleaning up a park 2 hours a week.
Where was your concern over the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus, acts of torture, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, the expansion of power of the executive branch, or the polticization of the DOJ?
This was not a slippery slope, but a sheer cliff. And the outgoing administration was at the edge of the cliff tossing freedoms over, with their defenders cheering them on.
Quoted for truth.
flickad
11-13-2008, 02:22 AM
Mandatory service, listlessly aimed at the poor and under-privileged, is wrong on so many fronts ...
'Country first' is a great mantra to run around saying, but I feel that 'Freedom first' is (or should be) considered inherent. Consider that for a moment. To claim 'Country first', without any implied and/or inherent modes of operation, is fanatical and misguided.
If you assume that ' Country first' is without inherent elements automatically assumed, then you could say that if the person was against totalitarianism ... then they were full of 'hot air'. Yes, that is an extreme example, but I am trying to demonstrate a point. The implied meaning in that statement has to be considered.
Also, why is every item brought up turned into a partisan debate? Hate both parties equally as they are both self-serving and not 'for the people'. I disagree with the dems more often than the repubs because I lean conservative on a lot of issues, but the fact is they have both screwed us time and time again (and will continue that behavior if we allow it - the bail-outs as an example).
Narcissus
The very title of this thread is partisan, as are your own posts. I'm not saying partisanship is a bad thing- it's quite natural for people to lean toward one side or another, and I see nothing wrong with people of all stripes airing their personal views. What I am doing is pointing out that the criticism seems misplaced.
flickad
11-13-2008, 02:28 AM
No matter how simple I make things, I cannot seem to get my point across to you. This time I will go step-by-step ...
Poor and underprivileged people cannot afford to pay for a college education ...
Some poor and underprivileged people would like to go to college so that they will no longer be poor and underprivileged people ...
The only way that poor and underprivileged people can go to college is through the use of things like grants, student loans and scholarships ...
Our government is the main supplier of those programs that allow poor and underprivileged people to attend college ...
Our government is proposing that to receive those programs, people will now be required to perform services they deem 'worthy' ...
So for the vast number of poor and underprivileged people to be able to attend college, they must perform those services ...
Something that is required (the services) can also be called mandatory or obligatory ...
So for the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people that want to attend college, it is mandatory service or even mandatory servitude ...
Wealthy, privileged people do not need government programs to attend college ...
Wealthy, privileged people therefore are not required to do government services ...
So for wealthy, privileged people that want to go to college, it is not mandatory service ...
Therefore wealthy people have no mandatory services to attend college and the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people do ...
Now, apply those same basic principles to old poor and underprivileged people looking for the many programs offered them by the government ...
So as I have been saying ... I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
EDIT: This was posted while I was writing my reply:
Narcissus
Well, you see, this programme could be seen as a way for the underprivileged to pay for their college educations as opposed to forced servitude, much like what we call work-for-the-dole and what you call workfare. It's not slavery, it's giving something back in return for a benefit.
Genevive
11-13-2008, 02:39 AM
From Obama's National Service Plan Factsheet:
"II. INTEGRATE SERVICE INTO EDUCATION
Barack Obama calls his years working as a community organizer in Chicago’s South Side the best education he
ever had. He believes that all students should serve their communities. Studies show that students who
participate in service-learning programs do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and go to
college, and are more likely to become active, engaged citizens. Schools that require service as part of the
educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities.
The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under
their belts.
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation’s Schools: In November, Barack Obama laid out a comprehensive
plan to provide all Americans with a world-class education and give our schools a substantial infusion of funds
to support teachers and principals and improve student learning. That plan conditions that assistance on school
districts developing programs to engage students in service opportunities. Obama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months. They will develop national guidelines for service-learning and community
service programs, and will give schools better tools both to develop successful programs and to document the
experience of students at all levels. They will encourage programs that engage with community partners to
expand opportunities for community service and service-learning opportunities, so that students can apply what
they learn in the classroom to authentic situations that help the community. These programs will also involve
citizens from the community engaging students in service opportunities through the Classroom Corps."
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-13-2008, 04:08 AM
Interesting idea you pose there, JML. For a person to get welfare (or even unemployment past a certain timeframe?) should that person have to volunteer a certain number of hours at a local non-profit?
Benefits:
* job experience for the recipient
* community enhancement
I like the call to service, but I fear that forcing kids in school to volunteer will turn them off to volunteerism after they're done. School turned us off to everything else...
high school turns you off of school...but you went on to college (or wanted to) didn't you??
and i garuntee you that community service goes deeper than that of a simple english or math class.... and that if not all, most students will return with something good from it....
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-13-2008, 04:44 AM
okay, i can see you don't get it no matter how simple i make it... so i'm gonna make this my last try...i'm gonna break it down within your quote....
No matter how simple I make things, I cannot seem to get my point across to you. This time I will go step-by-step ...
Poor and underprivileged people cannot afford to pay for a college education ...
why do you say that as if this is a new thing? It has always been hard for the poor and underpriveldged to pay for college... But the poor and under priveledged have been finding a way, haven't they?
Some poor and underprivileged people would like to go to college so that they will no longer be poor and underprivileged people ...
okay. again. not a new concept.
The only way that poor and underprivileged people can go to college is through the use of things like grants, student loans and scholarships ...
okay. and this is how it has been for years. obama said NOTHING about getting rid of grants, student loans and scholarships. This option will be open still for the people who refuse to work for thier community in order to pay for college. So they can write an essay for scholarship (and most scholarships require a min. of community service anyway lmao...go figure eh?)... apply for grants (which under obama's plan are actually being raised...the pell grant), or apply for a student loan (which they will have to WORK to pay off anyway....and probably not make as much or more than 40 dollars an hour.... student loans aren't hand outs... period)....
or the students can do all the above... (which is my plan :D)
Our government is the main supplier of those programs that allow poor and underprivileged people to attend college ...
see above^
Our government is proposing that to receive those programs, people will now be required to perform services they deem 'worthy' ...
no, our government is proposing that another option is a community service grant. he never said that in order to recieve any loans, grants or scholarships...you must do 100 hours a community service. Show me the quote where he says that...and i will admit that it is forcing mandatory service... otherwise...you have no case
So for the vast number of poor and underprivileged people to be able to attend college, they must perform those services ...
like i said, poor and under priveledged can do it the way they have always been doing it.... (but if they are smart about it... they will do everything available to recieve the money they need to attend school)
Something that is required (the services) can also be called mandatory or obligatory ...
taking classes is mandatory to finishing school... but going to school is not mandatory...
writing essays is mandatory for getting a scholarship...but getting a scholarship is NOT MANDATORY...
working in your community to recieve 4 grand towards school is mandatory... but recieving the 4 grand is NOT MANDATORY...therefore it is NOT being forced by the government....it is NOT FORCED SERVITUDE....
So for the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people that want to attend college, it is mandatory service or even mandatory servitude ...
mandatory...relitive to what???... not going to college...no..it is mandatory to recieving money... and in that case...any job qualifies as mandatory service... or even mandatory servitude... under your arguement... i'm a FORCED STRIPPER.... i'm poor and under privileged... so in order to pay for college, i have to take my clothes off.... so all poor and under privileged people are being forced to take thier clothes off or they can't attend college
o....m...g.... i just realised....
BUSH IS FORCING THE YOUNG GIRLS OF AMERICA TO BECOME STRIPPERS!!!!!!! ....why hasn't he been STOPPED????;D
thanks narcissus.... i would have never known...YOU SAVED ME!!!!!!!
Wealthy, privileged people do not need government programs to attend college ...
they sure don't.... but rich people still recieve scholarships... money is money...no matter who it goes to....
Wealthy, privileged people therefore are not required to do government services ...
no one is... like i said be4... you tell me where it says in order to recieve a loan, grant or scholarship... you must do the 100 hours community service
So for wealthy, privileged people that want to go to college, it is not mandatory service ...
but also an option for them as well... money is money...
Therefore wealthy people have no mandatory services to attend college and the vast majority of poor and underprivileged people do ...
majority....it should be ALL... what happened to forced servitude?
Now, apply those same basic principles to old poor and underprivileged people looking for the many programs offered them by the government ...
so old people can't help thier community... really? there are a million and one things someone old could do for thier community... if they have been working this hard for 8 dollars an hour to afford thier home and medicine... i'm sure they wouldn't mind trading that for 4 times less the work, 4 times more the money...and a simpler task... i know my great grandmother wouldn't...
and i'm sure that if they are to old or sick to even do the simpelest task, they will not be required. But we will have to review the law in FULL detail to argue that. So, i can only present the college service arguement for right now. I Will not argue fuller about old people and community sevice.
So as I have been saying ... I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
...read above
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
only really freakin scary conservitives would think that helping your community for credit towards college is a "bad thing"...:-\ :O
EDIT: This was posted while I was writing my reply:
Narcissus
i don't think i can make it anymore elementry than that
ps. I'M SO PROUD OF MYSELF FOR NOT CURSING YOU OUT!!!! YAY ME!;D
Narcissus
11-13-2008, 08:54 AM
The very title of this thread is partisan, as are your own posts. I'm not saying partisanship is a bad thing- it's quite natural for people to lean toward one side or another, and I see nothing wrong with people of all stripes airing their personal views. What I am doing is pointing out that the criticism seems misplaced.
My posts are partisan? Are you aware of what partisan means?
There is a big difference between leaning left or leaning right and being partisan. Partisan means following your party with blind devotion, which I don't do (or even can do as I dislike and disagree with both parties).
okay, i can see you don't get it no matter how simple i make it... so i'm gonna make this my last try...i'm gonna break it down within your quote....
i don't think i can make it anymore elementry than that
ps. I'M SO PROUD OF MYSELF FOR NOT CURSING YOU OUT!!!! YAY ME!;D
Because you broke it down inside my quote, I've decided that it is too much trouble to argue my points. Besides, it is abundantly clear that you agree with Obama's plan while I disagree. See it as me conceding or whatever ... you win.
p.s. I'm proud of you as well. :D
Narcissus
Ms. Mia Roberts
11-13-2008, 09:00 AM
Because you broke it down inside my quote, I've decided that it is too much trouble to argue my points. Besides, it is abundantly clear that you agree with Obama's plan while I disagree. See it as me conceding or whatever ... you win.
p.s. I'm proud of you as well. :D
Narcissus
thats really ashame...
because i would really like to hear what you have to say. And its not about agreeing with it or not... its making sure that you understand what it is... and stop labeling it forced or mandatory service.... you can disagree with it all you want, i could care less
i would just like you to show me exactly how its being forced upon the poor... if you can, i will admit that for the first time you are right and i am wrong....
Paris
11-13-2008, 09:33 AM
If you are poor, you need help going to college. To receive benefits from the government (the vast majority of benefits helping under-privileged families attend college) ... mandatory service for poor and underprivileged.
The same applies with the elderly.
As far as middle school/high school students, the only good reasoning is that it teaches them responsibility and good morals ... the job of parents, not government.
Like I said, I disagree with mandatory service even if it was across the board and affected everyone equally, but forcing mandatory service on the poor alone is wrong.
Then think of this not as a new social policy, but as the first steps towards Obama's social, Saul Alinsky originated agenda and it goes from a 'bad thing' to a really freaking scary thing.
Narcissus
I see nothing wrong with earning an education through hard work if you aren't born with a trust fund. At least it is an opportunity to go to college when previously there existed none.
I know that some will say there is government grants, but those have been slowly disappearing and leaving students with loans instead. The service for tuition option could help students and their families come out of school with a reduced debt burden.
If college students want to pay their own tuition and skip the 2 hours a week of community service, that is their choice. But at least the option exists for those that have no other options.
I built my home on a sweat equity program. Sure, it was a lot of hard work. Sure, I was quite exhausted by the time we moved in. BUT...I got a home worth $210K for $147K plus labor. I'm more than happy to have that $63k in my pocket instead of wrapped up in a mortgage. Today, that same home is appraised at $320k. I looked at the labor I put in as an investment in my future. And it really paid off, big time!
I would have never purchased a home at the higher price. I didn't feel comfortable under all that debt. Today I'm looking at having my home paid in full by 2012.
So, yes, service toward the community in exchange for $$ will be a great motivator for those that otherwise would have had zero options. The wealthy will always be able to buy their way out of obligations that the poor cannot. Ask GWB how his service in Viet Nam went. Or Dick Cheney.
But wouldn't it be nice, if for once the middle class and poor could earn an education, putting them on equal footing with the wealthy educationally speaking? It isn't a free ride, no one is harmed and wealthy can still buy out if they so desire.
I still haven't seen any points on how this program will do harm. What would a negative outcome be? Spoiled brats won't be able to get away with throwing a temper tantrum? Too fucking bad. Those brats will have to roll up their sleeves and work just like everyone else. 1-2 hours a week isn't going to kill anyone.
Unless the nay-sayers are the epitome of the spoiled brats, I just don't get what the problem is here.