NationStates

Shaggai wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
I don't think you understand that there are studies to back this stuff up and that that is why they made these specific recommendations.

Nor did he read the bit that says how they plan to reduce the amounts. Here's what it says:

by addressing the root causes of the referrals and eradicating discriminatory referrals.

Is anything wrong with that?

nothing that i can see.

Nevanmaa wrote:There was no reason to believe that Hitler would've betrayed a reliable, fairly pro-German ally and waste millions of men to invade it over a few hundred Jews.

I'd like to imagine that that whole thing about the Final Solution (which you have never once spoke about; is it because actually acknowledging that you're picking a really shitty alternative to something you disagree with actually comes with some pretty big cons like this?) and how the ultimate goal of the Nazi regime was the extinction of European Jewry (hence the term "Final Solution," like honestly, this is elementary, Watson!) would triumph over naive assumptions that a few hundred Jews are going to get spared. Who cares, anyway, if Finns were "honorary Aryans" - people have a problem with your views because no matter what the truth is about Finland, you are implictly supporting a rather not well recieved group of regimes, not caring about all the stuff they are said to have done, etc, etc.

But I would rather not threadjack, so I'll leave it at that.

Frisivisia wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:Well that's just silly. You know why I don't believe this? It would incredibly stupid.

I mean this is Obama we are talking about! What's next? Mandating that all individuals buy health insurance and calling that "meaningful healthcare reform?"

Preposterous!

Do you see what I'm saying?

Just silly. Silly and stupid.

Let's be fair, Obama made me read the bill, it sucked, but it does a lot of good shit.

I say it half-jokingly, tbh. Don't get me wrong I'm very critical of the president and the ACA. But he had few other options. And while it is not ideal, it's something that helps many folks out.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Nevanmaa wrote:There was no reason to believe that Hitler would've betrayed a reliable, fairly pro-German ally and waste millions of men to invade it over a few hundred Jews.

I'd like to imagine that that whole thing about the Final Solution (which you have never once spoke about; is it because actually acknowledging that you're picking a really shitty alternative to something you disagree with actually comes with some pretty big cons like this?) and how the ultimate goal of the Nazi regime was the extinction of European Jewry (hence the term "Final Solution," like honestly, this is elementary, Watson!) would triumph over naive assumptions that a few hundred Jews are going to get spared. I'd address that bit about how Germany would never attack the sovereignty of Finland and all, but I shouldn't have to. Just go ask any Pole, Dutch, Belgian, etc citizen. They'd do it better than I could, and on a more appropriate forum, as I'd rather not threadjack.

Yeah, but how are you going to get those few hundred Jews when a country's leader who has tremendous respect among the Finns says "no"? Are you going to tens of thousands of soldiers and a reliable ally for a few hundred Jews?

You're not. You don't invade an ally because a few hundred jews live there.

Hussein does things which harm America? What's new about that?

Nevanmaa wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:
I'd like to imagine that that whole thing about the Final Solution (which you have never once spoke about; is it because actually acknowledging that you're picking a really shitty alternative to something you disagree with actually comes with some pretty big cons like this?) and how the ultimate goal of the Nazi regime was the extinction of European Jewry (hence the term "Final Solution," like honestly, this is elementary, Watson!) would triumph over naive assumptions that a few hundred Jews are going to get spared. I'd address that bit about how Germany would never attack the sovereignty of Finland and all, but I shouldn't have to. Just go ask any Pole, Dutch, Belgian, etc citizen. They'd do it better than I could, and on a more appropriate forum, as I'd rather not threadjack.

Yeah, but how are you going to get those few hundred Jews when a country's leader who has tremendous respect among the Finns says "no"? Are you going to tens of thousands of soldiers and a reliable ally for a few hundred Jews?

You're not. You don't invade an ally because a few hundred jews live there.

Dude, the thread topic, the one you started, is over that way.

Nevanmaa wrote:

Ganos Lao wrote:
I'd like to imagine that that whole thing about the Final Solution (which you have never once spoke about; is it because actually acknowledging that you're picking a really shitty alternative to something you disagree with actually comes with some pretty big cons like this?) and how the ultimate goal of the Nazi regime was the extinction of European Jewry (hence the term "Final Solution," like honestly, this is elementary, Watson!) would triumph over naive assumptions that a few hundred Jews are going to get spared. I'd address that bit about how Germany would never attack the sovereignty of Finland and all, but I shouldn't have to. Just go ask any Pole, Dutch, Belgian, etc citizen. They'd do it better than I could, and on a more appropriate forum, as I'd rather not threadjack.

Yeah, but how are you going to get those few hundred Jews when a country's leader who has tremendous respect among the Finns says "no"? Are you going to tens of thousands of soldiers and a reliable ally for a few hundred Jews?

You're not. You don't invade an ally because a few hundred jews live there.

Sounds logical, but we're talking about Hitler here. The guy was as logical as a poop-flavored lollipop.

Nevanmaa wrote:-snip-

It's not even about Finland, it's about your support of guys who would've utterly destroyed Jews elsewhere in Europe and the Slavs of Russia, the Ukraine, etc. That is where people's problems with your apologetics lie. Why should we agree with you about Obama being racist, what's best for America, etc if you essentially support guys like the Nazis? You say "well, Finland's Jews would be ok!" but you give no thought, no compassion, no concern, nothing at all, to the Jews in the rest of Europe, to the Slavs, to the Gypsies, to anyone else who would find themselves consumed by the Nazi machine. You are basically being a really insensitive sort of person.

I'd imagine Chinese and Korean people would be offended as well. The Axis included Japan. Those guys reportedly did some really nasty shit to the Chinese and Koreans. And you are basically saying that, yes, these same guys should have won because they'd have made sure social democracy never existed! Hip hip hoorah!

That is the problem, Hippo. Address the bigger picture, but preferably on another thread.

Fartsniffage wrote:Dude, the thread topic, the one you started, is over that way.

I'm sorry if I contributed to a threadjack, but I was just trying to illustrate how hard it is to take Hippo's views, such as that Obama is being racist, seriously when you remember that ironically enough, he himself supports racists. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll stop touching on the whole Nazi apologetics thing - I'd rather not help get this thread locked on the people trying to have a discussion about the actual topic.

Wouldn't this order violate the equal protection of the 14th amendment by applying discipline disparately based solely on race (assuming thats what this excutive order actually does), not to mention the tenth amendment (feds encroaching unjustly in education the sole province of the states). Unless of course Obama is saying teachers are all huge flaming racists who have been unfairly targeting black kids and that he is just correcting the injustice.

Ganos Lao wrote:

Nevanmaa wrote:You don't invade an ally because a few hundred jews live there.

It's not even about Finland, it's about your support of guys who would've utterly destroyed Jews elsewhere in Europe and the Slavs of Russia, the Ukraine, etc. That is where people's problems with your apologetics lie. Why should we agree with you about Obama being racist, what's best for America, etc if you essentially support guys like the Nazis? You say "well, Finland's Jews would be ok!" but you give no thought, no compassion, no concern, nothing at all, to the Jews in the rest of Europe, to the Slavs, to the Gypsies, to anyone else who would find themselves consumed by the Nazi machine. You are basically being a really insensitive sort of person.

I'd imagine Chinese and Korean people would be offended as well. The Axis included Japan. Those guys reportedly did some really nasty shit to the Chinese and Koreans. And you are basically saying that, yes, these same guys should have won because they'd have made sure social democracy never existed! Hip hip hoorah!

That is the problem, Hippo. Address the bigger picture, but preferably on another thread.

Fartsniffage wrote:Dude, the thread topic, the one you started, is over that way.

I'm sorry if I contributed to a threadjack, but I was just trying to illustrate how hard it is to take Hippo's views, such as that Obama is being racist, seriously when you remember that ironically enough, he himself supports racists. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll stop touching on the whole Nazi apologetics thing - I'd rather not help get this thread locked on the people trying to have a discussion about the actual topic.

There's nothing to discuss on the actual topic. The actual topic has been shown to be a harmful, malicious, and self-serving lie.

Llamalandia wrote:Wouldn't this order violate the equal protection of the 14th amendment by applying discipline disparately based solely on race (assuming thats what this excutive order actually does), not to mention the tenth amendment (feds encroaching unjustly in education the sole province of the states). Unless of course Obama is saying teachers are all huge flaming racists who have been unfairly targeting black kids and that he is just correcting the injustice.

Wouldn't this post be so much more valuable if its author had actually bothered to read the thread, where s/he would have learned that the OP is a harmful, malicious, and self-serving lie?

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:Wouldn't this order violate the equal protection of the 14th amendment by applying discipline disparately based solely on race (assuming thats what this excutive order actually does), not to mention the tenth amendment (feds encroaching unjustly in education the sole province of the states). Unless of course Obama is saying teachers are all huge flaming racists who have been unfairly targeting black kids and that he is just correcting the injustice.

Wouldn't this post be so much more valuable if its author had actually bothered to read the thread, where s/he would have learned that the OP is a harmful, malicious, and self-serving lie?

I was taking the OP more or less at face value, though as you should have seen if you'd read my post I specifically pointed out that my post was made "[u](assuming thats what this executive order actually does)[/u] Yeah I also look at the original article and found it more or less backs what the op said however looking at other articles about this order are devoid of a mention of specific quotas or racially based discipline so I have my doubts about the OP, just trying to keep it on topic rather than argue about nazis as everyone else here has been doing. :)

Llamalandia wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Wouldn't this post be so much more valuable if its author had actually bothered to read the thread, where s/he would have learned that the OP is a harmful, malicious, and self-serving lie?

I was taking the OP more or less at face value, though as you should have seen if you'd read my post I specifically pointed out that my post was made "[u](assuming thats what this executive order actually does)[/u] Yeah I also look at the original article and found it more or less backs what the op said however looking at other articles about this order are devoid of a mention of specific quotas or racially based discipline so I have my doubts about the OP, just trying to keep it on topic rather than argue about nazis as everyone else here has been doing. :)

The point that Bluth is making is that you could perhaps have gained greater insight by reading the article and doing a bit of research before commenting. The fact that the OP's "source" was a celebrity rag like this "Examiner" website should have been the first clue that something was off. The second clue was this outstandingly racist screed:

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Any serious sociologist, any serious observer of the topic, knows that ascribing differing reporting rates between races to behavioural differences is simply stupid. For that matter, the entire article was written with code-worded racism, race-baiting and white resentment steeped throughout the entire text.

The third clue should have been a gander at the EO in question: not only is it over a year old, but it doesn't say one single thing that ridiculous article claims it says.

Frankly, anyone who took the OP's "source" seriously for more than five seconds committed a research fail of somewhat sub-epic proportions.

Llamalandia wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Wouldn't this post be so much more valuable if its author had actually bothered to read the thread, where s/he would have learned that the OP is a harmful, malicious, and self-serving lie?

I was taking the OP more or less at face value, though as you should have seen if you'd read my post I specifically pointed out that my post was made "[u](assuming thats what this executive order actually does)[/u] Yeah I also look at the original article and found it more or less backs what the op said however looking at other articles about this order are devoid of a mention of specific quotas or racially based discipline so I have my doubts about the OP, just trying to keep it on topic rather than argue about nazis as everyone else here has been doing. :)

It's almost like all your questions could have been answered within the first two pages...

Who Cares...maybe if it had a little more chutzpah to it then it might be not be so lame.

Nevanmaa wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You planning on addressing any of the criticisms of your OP or are you just going to while away the hours on a threadjack?

Well why the fuck not.

Even if the Examiner's title was misleading, Obama's executive order still proposes reducing punishments and tolerating bad behavior, which is not going to help anyone.

No, it doesn't. Here's the article in dispute:

(vi) reducing the dropout rate of African American students and helping African American students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career

I'll assume that we can both agree that this is a noble goal.

in part by promoting a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools

I know that English isn't your first language, so I'll do you the favor of assuming that this disputed passage is one that you simply don't understand. The sentence does nothing more or less than state that black students should not be disciplined more harshly than white students for similar offenses. This addresses a prevalent and recognized problem in the United States. Black students are significantly more likely than white students to be given suspensions and expulsions for similar offenses, meaning that they miss far more school than their white counterparts, and are far more likely to drop out of school.

As someone who claims to love America, I assume that you know that the concept of equal treatment under the law is a basic underpinning of our judicial system. We're nowhere near having reached that ideal, but we're trying. This simply takes that concept and applies it to schools. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, you should have no issue whatsoever with this aspect of the order, and I can only assume that you applaud its aims.

and by supporting successful and innovative dropout prevention and recovery strategies that better engage African American youths in their learning,

Lower the dropout rate for black students: another obvious good.

help them catch up academically, and provide those who have left the educational system with pathways to reentry;

Give them academic tools to succeed while they're in school, and provide ways for them to come back to school once they've dropped out. Perhaps a touch idealistic on the last one, but it's certainly worth a shot, wouldn't you say?

Now, as the America-lover that you are, you've likely realized that it's time that you admitted that you were entirely wrong about this, and to apologize for your race-baiting post.

Jehuddah wrote:Hussein does things which harm America? What's new about that?

And now is the point where you read the thread or look closer at the actual EO and realize that you are completely wrong, and edit your post to make it actually constructive, right?

Jehuddah wrote:Hussein does things which harm America? What's new about that?

I wanted to thank you for letting me know with the very first word of your post that the rest of it shouldn't be taken at all seriously. That's a new record for me.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Jehuddah wrote:Hussein does things which harm America? What's new about that?

I wanted to thank you for letting me know with the very first word of your post that the rest of it shouldn't be taken at all seriously. That's a new record for me.

Dubya

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
I wanted to thank you for letting me know with the very first word of your post that the rest of it shouldn't be taken at all seriously. That's a new record for me.

Dubya

A nickname that he used himself, no different from calling Ronald Reagan "The Gipper", or Bill Clinton "Bubba". Context, context, context.

I'm shocked, shocked to find out that The Poster Formerly Known As Hippostania stooped to the point of using a tabloid to fuel his own racist arguments.

Avenio wrote:I'm shocked, shocked to find out that The Poster Formerly Known As Hippostania stooped to the point of using a tabloid to fuel his own racist arguments.

You mean the nation that was deated for...trolling? Say it ain't so!

New Chalcedon wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
I was taking the OP more or less at face value, though as you should have seen if you'd read my post I specifically pointed out that my post was made "[u](assuming thats what this executive order actually does)[/u] Yeah I also look at the original article and found it more or less backs what the op said however looking at other articles about this order are devoid of a mention of specific quotas or racially based discipline so I have my doubts about the OP, just trying to keep it on topic rather than argue about nazis as everyone else here has been doing. :)

The point that Bluth is making is that you could perhaps have gained greater insight by reading the article and doing a bit of research before commenting. The fact that the OP's "source" was a celebrity rag like this "Examiner" website should have been the first clue that something was off. The second clue was this outstandingly racist screed:

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Any serious sociologist, any serious observer of the topic, knows that ascribing differing reporting rates between races to behavioural differences is simply stupid. For that matter, the entire article was written with code-worded racism, race-baiting and white resentment steeped throughout the entire text.

The third clue should have been a gander at the EO in question: not only is it over a year old, but it doesn't say one single thing that ridiculous article claims it says.

Frankly, anyone who took the OP's "source" seriously for more than five seconds committed a research fail of somewhat sub-epic proportions.

As I said in my response to Bluth I had read the original article and had my doubts about the accuracy of the op's portrayal the story and I also noted that I had done further research before posting and couldn't find any other more credible sources on the story. The fact is I personally don't believe that a president who has already injected himself and his own opinion into one of the most racially charged court cases of this decade (i.e. zimmerman) would be above having a policy such as this, purely my opinion though.

How about not the Examiner?

Blekksprutia wrote:How about not the Examiner?

But if we use facts we'll never be able to prove that Obama is just as racist as the American far-right.