the NO PC ZONE!

The behavior change would likely remove both the need for policing and the fear that inspires avoidance and segregation.

 

I admit to being unable substantiate my claim regarding the middle class being better off under Bush than under Obama.

I have already substantiated my claim regarding the economic growth rate with this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...obamas-below-average-job-growth-deroy-murdock
which I mentioned in post #45.

If what I read recently can be relied upon, it's possible that Obama has broken with the tradition of Democrats taxing Americans more than Republicans.

I don't think that I mentioned in this thread the fact that Obama has started more wars than Bush, but in the thread where I did mention it, I backed it up with this article:
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawi...g-the-war-comparisons-between-obama-and-bush/

My claim about unemployment can be verified here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/8/editorial-obamas-unemployment-rate-lies-exposed-by/

This article shows mixed results regarding Obama's record:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/obamas-numbers-january-2015-update/
I'm not sure who's position that supports, but it's worth noting.

None of the above articles mention a disturbing phenomenon regarding Obamacare. A friend of mine works at a company which cut all of its full-time employees' hours to part-time so that the company doesn't have to comply with Obamacare's ridiculous requirements. A friend of mine used to work at a company which stopped giving its employees health care coverage because the company was better off paying the fines than complying with Obamacare, and he only makes $90,000 to $100,000 a year so he can't afford Obamacare. I would be very surprised if those two nationally recognized companies are the only two companies which have made similar changes after Obamacare.

Anyway, would you care to support your claim regarding my being a "co-religionist?"

 

You seem fervantly "anti-Obama" and like to share your beliefs in that regard with your friends, apparently.

Meanwhile, Americans in general, myself included, consistently assess him - as a comparison of polling data confirms - as an average POTUS, better than his predecessor, nowhere near as good as his predecessor.

Nationalized RomneyCare is here to stay for a while, but that does not preclude its being improved - in accordance with the wishes of the American electorate. No viable replacement is being offered.

 

If you are really interested in the objective rating of presidents regarding job creation, this is an interesting compilation of the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with some surprising numbers.

(Click on "Ave annual increase" for listing s in order of the percentage achieved.)

Herbert Hoover?

I

 

It's quite possible that Obama may be an average POTUS, regarding most Americans, but according to figures stated in this article, written by a black man, such is not the case for black Americans. It looks as though my preconception about his being prejudiced against white people, may have been in error. According to the numbers, if he's prejudiced against anyone, it's black people.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/23/under-obama-blacks-are-worse-off--far-worse-n2028985/page/full

Thanks Obama!

 

If "Town Hall" cuisine satisfies your peculiar ideological cravings, Bon appétit!

Larry Elder would certainly appear to be just the sort of Republican media entertainer that serves up the fare you savour.

 

Next up in the NO PC ZONE.....

The Muslim/BLM similarities.

Okay....Muslims are being singled out due to the FACT that virtually ALL terrorism taking place in this world ia perpetrated by Muslims.

Black men are being singled out due to the FACT our police tend to deal with crimes and many are committed by black men.

Most Muslims are not targeted unless they are part of the terror being spread, but when they are they tend to die.
Most black men are not targeted unless they are committing a crime, but when they are they might easily die...especially if they act stupidly when caught.

....Discuss.....

 

You certainly don't. PC is simply showing good manners and an understanding of civilized behavior.
Gone are the days when whites could prattle on about any group they wanted to insult and expect the members of that group to bend over and take it.
Too bad if that makes bigots, misogynists and racists feel unfairly singled out.

 

Yeah because the police have become the gestapo in America and will riddle you with bullets if you don't act like Steppin Fetchit.

 

Thanks for explaining that you do not know what PC is...makes sense now. Being politically correct would be the avoidance of discussion in the attempt to keep others feeling from being hurt or not addressing issues that cause others to become defensive.

 

`
Well done. Many verbal personal transgressions are done with the intention of hurting the other person. This has been common throughout history. It's also referred as "name calling" or being rude, least ways in more thoughtful times. However, as a society, we have unfortunately abandon the rules of etiquette, civility, politeness and courtesy in lieu of guttersnipe. Men like Abe Lincoln, Mark Twain and Winston Churchill, who had a command of the English language, could verbally thwart a foe without descending into the vernacular of the uneducated low life. This is what happens to a "dumbed down" society who has no use for an academic education.

PC, tragically, has become the new standard bearer for etiquette and politeness. It's purpose is force people to comply with a politically inspired manner of correct language. Some of it is meaningful as to correctly identify a medical predisposition a person has no control over, as being "handicapped" instead of "retarded". But most of PC has come about for the reasons I already mentioned.

In a cynical manner, I suppose PC is the way to go when the masses start acting like uncivil animals.

 

I live in mostly black county, and I'm f'ing sick of the way they blame whitey for all of their problems, and protest or riot when the police are just doing theur jobs.

 

People can be crude (although why would anyone wish to be rude and offensive)? People can even whine about how they have a right to be crude. However, other people can criticize crude speech and stereotyping.

 

When I was a child, we had a saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. It's a shame that too many people, PCers in particular, don't seem to understand that saying.

 

When I was a child, I was told to have manners. I was told to treat other people as I would want to be treated and that doesn't include spreading racist stereotypes. If you don't ascribe to these beliefs, feel free to be offensive but you'll have to plug your ears if you don't want backlash. You can't prevent other people from voicing their offense, while complaining that YOUR free ability to offend is being stifled. That's not how free speech (or logic) works.

 

You seem to have misunderstood me. My seemingly racist comments are based on observations I've made about the way people actually act and talk, and I haven't actually complained about my speech being stifled, although we do have unconstitutional laws which prohibit some forms of speech.

 

I don't understand the complaint.

It is not law. You are not required to be PC, so what exactly is the problem?

 

When we make observations about people and then extend those observations to broad brush statements about groups, that is called stereotyping. I wasn't specifically speaking about your impression about black people in your county but if you're going to make such racially charged statements, criticism will likely follow. I'm not sure what the relevance of the sticks and stones statement is if you acknowledge that people have every right to voice their disapproval of statements that they consider to be offensive.

 

Is "Steppin Fetchit" an ebonics term for someone who believes in rule of law?