Is the voilence attributed to the decline of the white male?

[colourwheel]

Having equal rights is a good thing but I think the more important thing in this matter is equal opportunities. Programs like Affirmative action and the like was not structured to bring people rights, but to correct the perceived discrepancies in the workplace as far as White male and everyone else. The problem is that you can't burden young white males because of the past sins of a culture they had no hand in building. Suddenly their were agendas and quotas, instead of raw talent. I'm not saying that only the white males had raw talent, that would be absurd, but allowing a person who's grades are worse than yours to step in front of you is patently unfair and personally I think is against the equal protection lause in the constitution. While, like many Democratic legislation are well intended by poorly administered.

 

Instead of correcting anything, all it really did was create a whole new generation of victims. I think this is what this article is all about

 

Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them.

 

Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000.

 

You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement.

Edited February 11, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

 

Having equal rights is a good thing but I think the more important thing in this matter is equal opportunities. Programs like Affirmative action and the like was not structured to bring people rights, but to correct the perceived discrepancies in the workplace as far as White male and everyone else. The problem is that you can't burden young white males because of the past sins of a culture they had no hand in building. Suddenly their were agendas and quotas, instead of raw talent. I'm not saying that only the white males had raw talent, that would be absurd, but allowing a person who's grades are worse than yours to step in front of you is patently unfair and personally I think is against the equal protection lause in the constitution. While, like many Democratic legislation are well intended by poorly administered.

 

Instead of correcting anything, all it really did was create a whole new generation of victims. I think this is what this article is all about

Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them.

 

Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000.

 

You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement.

 

If an employer MUST look at race, in their hiring practices, that IS discrimination. I have had direct experience with this. I applied for a job that I figgered I was a shoe-in for. The qualifications exactly matched my skill set, and not many folks applied for the job. A man of color, with LESS experience, LESS training, and NO work experience got the job...... and got paid more per hour than I had asked for.

 

In a private conversation I had with one of the hiring managers, I was TOLD, FLAT OUT, that he got the job, because they needed "more diversity in their workforce" due to some government regulation.

 

Affirmative action is discrimination against the white man. Business should be able to hire the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job, regardless of their race.

[kvnchrist]

Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are well intentioned, but poorly implime

 

 

 

Having equal rights is a good thing but I think the more important thing in this matter is equal opportunities. Programs like Affirmative action and the like was not structured to bring people rights, but to correct the perceived discrepancies in the workplace as far as White male and everyone else. The problem is that you can't burden young white males because of the past sins of a culture they had no hand in building. Suddenly their were agendas and quotas, instead of raw talent. I'm not saying that only the white males had raw talent, that would be absurd, but allowing a person who's grades are worse than yours to step in front of you is patently unfair and personally I think is against the equal protection lause in the constitution. While, like many Democratic legislation are well intended by poorly administered.

Instead of correcting anything, all it really did was create a whole new generation of victims. I think this is what this article is all about

Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them.

Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000.

You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement.

 

If an employer MUST look at race, in their hiring practices, that IS discrimination. I have had direct experience with this. I applied for a job that I figgered I was a shoe-in for. The qualifications exactly matched my skill set, and not many folks applied for the job. A man of color, with LESS experience, LESS training, and NO work experience got the job...... and got paid more per hour than I had asked for.

 

In a private conversation I had with one of the hiring managers, I was TOLD, FLAT OUT, that he got the job, because they needed "more diversity in their workforce" due to some government regulation.

 

Affirmative action is discrimination against the white man. Business should be able to hire the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job, regardless of their race.

Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are fine sounding and well intentioned, but as I say, poorly implimented. It creates an agenda of percentages that needs to be adhered to or the work finds itself in jepardy of a lawsuit.

 

The frequency of reverse prejudism law suits have made that clear. If we are going to get rid of descrimination we are not going to do it by creating a new set of victims.

[colourwheel]

Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are well intentioned, but poorly implime

 

 

 

Having equal rights is a good thing but I think the more important thing in this matter is equal opportunities. Programs like Affirmative action and the like was not structured to bring people rights, but to correct the perceived discrepancies in the workplace as far as White male and everyone else. The problem is that you can't burden young white males because of the past sins of a culture they had no hand in building. Suddenly their were agendas and quotas, instead of raw talent. I'm not saying that only the white males had raw talent, that would be absurd, but allowing a person who's grades are worse than yours to step in front of you is patently unfair and personally I think is against the equal protection lause in the constitution. While, like many Democratic legislation are well intended by poorly administered.

 

Instead of correcting anything, all it really did was create a whole new generation of victims. I think this is what this article is all about

Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them.

 

Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000.

 

You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement.

 

If an employer MUST look at race, in their hiring practices, that IS discrimination. I have had direct experience with this. I applied for a job that I figgered I was a shoe-in for. The qualifications exactly matched my skill set, and not many folks applied for the job. A man of color, with LESS experience, LESS training, and NO work experience got the job...... and got paid more per hour than I had asked for.

 

In a private conversation I had with one of the hiring managers, I was TOLD, FLAT OUT, that he got the job, because they needed "more diversity in their workforce" due to some government regulation.

 

Affirmative action is discrimination against the white man. Business should be able to hire the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job, regardless of their race.

Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are fine sounding and well intentioned, but as I say, poorly implimented. It creates an agenda of percentages that needs to be adhered to or the work finds itself in jepardy of a lawsuit.

 

The frequency of reverse prejudism law suits have made that clear. If we are going to get rid of descrimination we are not going to do it by creating a new set of victims.

 

HeyYou your situation was very unfortunate. And honestly if that was the case where someone got hired who was "less qualified" or "not qualified" you could have made a challenging case. This is not what affirmative is suppose to be about.... you have an engineering company that only has white males hired they are not going to hire someone who has no qualifications for that job just because they are a minority.

[kvnchrist]

I'm not knocking government programs. I was on welfare while I was going through detox. The government just needs to figure out a workable way of implimenting these so thety can be of the most benefit to society as a whole. That was what all these were put in place for. Welfare, medicare, medicade WIC are all here to enrich society by bringing a standard to the lives of the public. The problem is that there are too many out there that abuse these and not enough people to go after the fraud.

[colourwheel]

I'm not knocking government programs. I was on welfare while I was going through detox. The government just needs to figure out a workable way of implimenting these so thety can be of the most benefit to society as a whole. That was what all these were put in place for. Welfare, medicare, medicade WIC are all here to enrich society by bringing a standard to the lives of the public. The problem is that there are too many out there that abuse these and not enough people to go after the fraud.

 

Do you understand why this has mainly happened in our country? Our country does not have a very healthy middle class anymore. "job creators" have basically benifited from how skewed our government works to make over 300 times more than an average worker without any intent to try to stimulate the economy back. For a capitalistic nation we have some of the most unfair taxations laws that rich benifit the most out of. Our country has states that get rid important state taxes in very red and blue states but our secretly increasing sales taxes knowing full well the onces that will suffer the most from this kind of taxation is everyone but the rich...

 

The answer is not to get rid of government programs that help a majority of the nation just because we can't afford it anymore. But this is not ruling out that Welfare, medicare, medicade etc... should not be atleast reformed.

 

You look at the banks in our country and how they have basically gotten to the point they are too big to fail. Just imagine what would happen if all majory buisnesses got this way eventually...

 

It would be great if our country could work on small government but as it is now trying to shrink our government i really don't think is the right anwaser.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

I'm not knocking government programs. I was on welfare while I was going through detox. The government just needs to figure out a workable way of implimenting these so thety can be of the most benefit to society as a whole. That was what all these were put in place for. Welfare, medicare, medicade WIC are all here to enrich society by bringing a standard to the lives of the public. The problem is that there are too many out there that abuse these and not enough people to go after the fraud.

Do you understand why this has mainly happened in our country? Our country does not have a very healthy middle class anymore. "job creators" have basically benifited from how skewed our government works to make over 300 times more than an average worker without any intent to try to stimulate the economy back. For a capitalistic nation we have some of the most unfair taxations laws that rich benifit the most out of. Our country has states that get rid important state taxes in very red and blue states but our secretly increasing sales taxes knowing full well the onces that will suffer the most from this kind of taxation is everyone but the rich...

 

The answer is not to get rid of government programs that help a majority of the nation just because we can't afford it anymore. But this is not ruling out that Welfare, medicare, medicade etc... should not be atleast reformed.

 

You look at the banks in our country and how they have basically gotten to the point they are too big to fail. Just imagine what would happen if all majory buisnesses got this way eventually...

 

It would be great if our country could work on small government but as it is now trying to shrink our government i really don't think is the right anwaser.

 

 

What I know for sure about government and economics could be placed easily inside a thimble and still have room enough fort a thumb. What I see is that the two party system we have in America has successfully separated Americans from Americans and has replaced common sense with the ideology that keeps us separated and at each others throats while they, the special interest groups and big business walk arm in arm for their own benefit and not ours.

 

What I believe of government programs is they are a sideshow to placate the masses into believing the government actually cares for them. Most of this is social engineering that robs from Peter to pay Paul and really doesn't aid in getting us anywhere except right back where were, but we , by virtue of our addiction to partisan bickering either feel vindicated or vindictive depending on which party comes up on top on election day. Kind of like backing a team in the Superbowl, but never playing for them.

 

You want government to work for you?

 

(1) Have then live with the same medical, social and retirement situations that the average citizen has to deal with. Set their retirement age to that of the average citizen and ban corporations who have donated to any politician from hiring that person for at least 5 years after they leave office,

 

(2) Make it so that they don't get paid until they do something worth being paid for.

 

(3) Have them drive themselves to work on the same streets, through the same rush hour traffic and pay the same for gas, out of their own pockets that we do.

 

(4) Ban big money, special interest groups from giving them gifts and perks that are unrelated to the performance of their duties to their constituents and have every dollar changing hands documented and posted on the internet along with the names of the corporation(s) involved.

 

As for the presidents. We should not be liable for the care and upkeep of ex presidents or flip the bill for their security. They are private citizens and I haven't heard of anyone of them who has left the office destitute.

 

As far as business go if they are too big to fail then they are too big to exist in their present configuration. If they screw up then they screw up. They should not be bailed out like the banks, only so they can pay their execs bonuses and hoard the money we gave them. I'm pretty sure we haven't come out of the pit we are in because the banks are setting on the money. Government should stay out of business and business out of government. Let big business and big labor fight the good fight until there is a stalemate that neither side will give. Then government should be the arbitrator in the end, but only that,

 

There's also a third element that effects society, but discussing that is banned here.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

I'm not knocking government programs. I was on welfare while I was going through detox. The government just needs to figure out a workable way of implimenting these so thety can be of the most benefit to society as a whole. That was what all these were put in place for. Welfare, medicare, medicade WIC are all here to enrich society by bringing a standard to the lives of the public. The problem is that there are too many out there that abuse these and not enough people to go after the fraud.

Do you understand why this has mainly happened in our country? Our country does not have a very healthy middle class anymore. "job creators" have basically benifited from how skewed our government works to make over 300 times more than an average worker without any intent to try to stimulate the economy back. For a capitalistic nation we have some of the most unfair taxations laws that rich benifit the most out of. Our country has states that get rid important state taxes in very red and blue states but our secretly increasing sales taxes knowing full well the onces that will suffer the most from this kind of taxation is everyone but the rich...

 

The answer is not to get rid of government programs that help a majority of the nation just because we can't afford it anymore. But this is not ruling out that Welfare, medicare, medicade etc... should not be atleast reformed.

 

You look at the banks in our country and how they have basically gotten to the point they are too big to fail. Just imagine what would happen if all majory buisnesses got this way eventually...

 

It would be great if our country could work on small government but as it is now trying to shrink our government i really don't think is the right anwaser.

 

What I know for sure about government and economics could be placed easily inside a thimble and still have room enough fort a thumb. What I see is that the two party system we have in America has successfully separated Americans from Americans and has replaced common sense with the ideology that keeps us separated and at each others throats while they, the special interest groups and big business walk arm in arm for their own benefit and not ours.

 

What I believe of government programs is they are a sideshow to placate the masses into believing the government actually cares for them. Most of this is social engineering that robs from Peter to pay Paul and really doesn't aid in getting us anywhere except right back where were, but we , by virtue of our addiction to partisan bickering either feel vindicated or vindictive depending on which party comes up on top on election day. Kind of like backing a team in the Superbowl, but never playing for them.

You want government to work for you?

 

(1) Have then live with the same medical, social and retirement situations that the average citizen has to deal with. Set their retirement age to that of the average citizen and ban corporations who have donated to any politician from hiring that person for at least 5 years after they leave office,

 

(2) Make it so that they don't get paid until they do something worth being paid for.

 

(3) Have them drive themselves to work on the same streets, through the same rush hour traffic and pay the same for gas, out of their own pockets that we do.

 

(4) Ban big money, special interest groups from giving them gifts and perks that are unrelated to the performance of their duties to their constituents and have every dollar changing hands documented and posted on the internet along with the names of the corporation(s) involved.

 

As for the presidents. We should not be liable for the care and upkeep of ex presidents or flip the bill for their security. They are private citizens and I haven't heard of anyone of them who has left the office destitute.

 

As far as business go if they are too big to fail then they are too big to exist in their present configuration. If they screw up then they screw up. They should not be bailed out like the banks, only so they can pay their execs bonuses and hoard the money we gave them. I'm pretty sure we haven't come out of the pit we are in because the banks are setting on the money. Government should stay out of business and business out of government. Let big business and big labor fight the good fight until there is a stalemate that neither side will give. Then government should be the arbitrator in the end, but only that,

 

There's also a third element that effects society, but discussing that is banned here.

 

 

This. Is. The. Problem.

 

While your solutions are pretty much spot on, they have no hope of ever being implemented. The ONLY folks that have the power to change the way things are, are the very same people that benefit the MOST from the current situation. Trying to convince them to turn off their gravy train just isn't going to happen, except, perhaps, at gunpoint.... (regime change.....) It has been my observation that amercians, taken as a whole, are pretty lazy when it comes to government reform..... seems we would rather just complain about it, rather than doing something.. which again, is completely understandable, given that we don't have the power to actually DO anything. We don't get to pick who runs for public office, that is decided by someone else. (those with money) we are presented a choice of the lesser of two (or more) evils. Independents have very little chance of getting elected, as the folks with the money see them as a threat, they make REAL sure that someone else gets the better financing/public exposure/whathave you, and does their best to discredit the person they DON'T want in office.

 

We NEED government reform, but, it is going to have to start with ELECTION reform.

 

Limit campaign donations to 5000.00 dollars from an individual registered voter.

Corporations are NOT people, and are NOT entitled to spend as much as they want as their 'free speech'. If it doesn't have a birth certificate, it is NOT entitled to the rights of one.

Campaigns may last a total of three months, up to the date of the election. That's it.

Get caught cheating by either campaigning early, or donations outside the above outlined limits, and you are banned from running for public office, for LIFE. (this would include a single individual handing out cash to other 'people' to contribute to the same campaign.)

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

 

I'm not knocking government programs. I was on welfare while I was going through detox. The government just needs to figure out a workable way of implimenting these so thety can be of the most benefit to society as a whole. That was what all these were put in place for. Welfare, medicare, medicade WIC are all here to enrich society by bringing a standard to the lives of the public. The problem is that there are too many out there that abuse these and not enough people to go after the fraud.

Do you understand why this has mainly happened in our country? Our country does not have a very healthy middle class anymore. "job creators" have basically benifited from how skewed our government works to make over 300 times more than an average worker without any intent to try to stimulate the economy back. For a capitalistic nation we have some of the most unfair taxations laws that rich benifit the most out of. Our country has states that get rid important state taxes in very red and blue states but our secretly increasing sales taxes knowing full well the onces that will suffer the most from this kind of taxation is everyone but the rich...

 

The answer is not to get rid of government programs that help a majority of the nation just because we can't afford it anymore. But this is not ruling out that Welfare, medicare, medicade etc... should not be atleast reformed.

 

You look at the banks in our country and how they have basically gotten to the point they are too big to fail. Just imagine what would happen if all majory buisnesses got this way eventually...

 

It would be great if our country could work on small government but as it is now trying to shrink our government i really don't think is the right anwaser.

 

What I know for sure about government and economics could be placed easily inside a thimble and still have room enough fort a thumb. What I see is that the two party system we have in America has successfully separated Americans from Americans and has replaced common sense with the ideology that keeps us separated and at each others throats while they, the special interest groups and big business walk arm in arm for their own benefit and not ours.

 

What I believe of government programs is they are a sideshow to placate the masses into believing the government actually cares for them. Most of this is social engineering that robs from Peter to pay Paul and really doesn't aid in getting us anywhere except right back where were, but we , by virtue of our addiction to partisan bickering either feel vindicated or vindictive depending on which party comes up on top on election day. Kind of like backing a team in the Superbowl, but never playing for them.

You want government to work for you?

 

(1) Have then live with the same medical, social and retirement situations that the average citizen has to deal with. Set their retirement age to that of the average citizen and ban corporations who have donated to any politician from hiring that person for at least 5 years after they leave office,

 

(2) Make it so that they don't get paid until they do something worth being paid for.

 

(3) Have them drive themselves to work on the same streets, through the same rush hour traffic and pay the same for gas, out of their own pockets that we do.

 

(4) Ban big money, special interest groups from giving them gifts and perks that are unrelated to the performance of their duties to their constituents and have every dollar changing hands documented and posted on the internet along with the names of the corporation(s) involved.

 

As for the presidents. We should not be liable for the care and upkeep of ex presidents or flip the bill for their security. They are private citizens and I haven't heard of anyone of them who has left the office destitute.

 

As far as business go if they are too big to fail then they are too big to exist in their present configuration. If they screw up then they screw up. They should not be bailed out like the banks, only so they can pay their execs bonuses and hoard the money we gave them. I'm pretty sure we haven't come out of the pit we are in because the banks are setting on the money. Government should stay out of business and business out of government. Let big business and big labor fight the good fight until there is a stalemate that neither side will give. Then government should be the arbitrator in the end, but only that,

 

There's also a third element that effects society, but discussing that is banned here.

 

This. Is. The. Problem.

 

While your solutions are pretty much spot on, they have no hope of ever being implemented. The ONLY folks that have the power to change the way things are, are the very same people that benefit the MOST from the current situation. Trying to convince them to turn off their gravy train just isn't going to happen, except, perhaps, at gunpoint.... (regime change.....) It has been my observation that amercians, taken as a whole, are pretty lazy when it comes to government reform..... seems we would rather just complain about it, rather than doing something.. which again, is completely understandable, given that we don't have the power to actually DO anything. We don't get to pick who runs for public office, that is decided by someone else. (those with money) we are presented a choice of the lesser of two (or more) evils. Independents have very little chance of getting elected, as the folks with the money see them as a threat, they make REAL sure that someone else gets the better financing/public exposure/whathave you, and does their best to discredit the person they DON'T want in office.

 

We NEED government reform, but, it is going to have to start with ELECTION reform.

 

Limit campaign donations to 5000.00 dollars from an individual registered voter.

Corporations are NOT people, and are NOT entitled to spend as much as they want as their 'free speech'. If it doesn't have a birth certificate, it is NOT entitled to the rights of one.

Campaigns may last a total of three months, up to the date of the election. That's it.

Get caught cheating by either campaigning early, or donations outside the above outlined limits, and you are banned from running for public office, for LIFE. (this would include a single individual handing out cash to other 'people' to contribute to the same campaign.)

 

As Americans, we are are spoiled rotten drama queens that can't see past the fictional walls of the ivory towers we perceive around us. We've had our cake and have eaten it so long we've grown fat and complacent on the swill our leaders have served us for so long. Our cities and our infrastructures are crumbling around us as we constantly view things through the very rose colored glasses that we were given to us by the very people we place in office to take care of our business. What has happened to our country, we've allowed by constantly looking for instant gratification for our every whim and not scrutinizing the hand that fed it to us.

 

I am an American, but I am not proud of being one just because I fell out of my mommas womb inside her borders. I price myself with what I've done to help those around me and chastise myself for failing to act when I should've. This flag waving the right does and the banner carrying the left does accomplishes nothing but allows those who blindly goosestep behind their puppet masters to become accustomed to these peoples flatulence. Unless we place the same scrutiny on the leaders of both sides, we will always be under their brand of opiate and will never truly have a voice in our government.

 

This thing about political correctness of our society and the idea that we should never offend anyone as well as those who diligently search for something to be offended by has turned this honest and open debate into a fiascle. We are told we shouldn't offend others by the very people who actively search for anything that they can act offended by and in so doing stifle free speech, while they claim to glorify the concept,.

 

We have indeed a lot of things to work on and I dare say it doesn't start with our politican. It starts with us and it will begin when we start looking at ourselves as individuals and look around us. The minute we do we might just find out that there are more than just us that think the same way. In that we might just start the trimor that may turn into the very Earthquake that moves this country in being closer to what we've deluded ourselves into believing it is.

[Nintii]

Hmmm, your headline seems to have very little in common with the body of your post.

Although I did follow up on your link and it read, "Guns and the Decline of the Young man",

nothing at all about a "white male" in the article's headline.

 

Though I did notice that the same article did mention the name of Seung-Hui Cho who went on

violent killing spree and took the lives of 32 innocent people and wounded another 17 innocent

people at Virginia Polytechnic ... and he was a Korean.

So as far as I'm concerned your post could also have headlined the statement ... " Is the violence

attributed to the decline of the Oriental male" but it did'nt but it could have.

 

You see KVN, what I'm trying to get at here is that your post concerning the shooting at Newtown

and your insert of the term "... decline of the White male" is in fact a racially motivated statement.

 

I've just perused the data from the US Department of Justice and if the horrifying and senseless

shooting of inncoent people (whether it be kids or adults) by a certain "White" person says that

now because of this the " .... White man is in Decline".

Then according to the data from the Department of Justice the "decline of the Black man" and the

growing levels of violence amongst the Hispanic community must be ensuring their decline too ?

I think not.

 

I would have rather stated that the "violence should be attributed to the over abundance of guns

and the general lack of respect toward human life" and not some racial putdown.

Violence from ANY group is ALWAYS unacceptable, irrespective of who they may be, but no

one group should be targeted.

 

Secondly ...

 

Perhaps it could be said that because of the Economic woes that the "White man" is now in,

he is in a "decline", and thus because of his apparent decline he is now losing it and the

the levels of White violence is increasing.

 

But no, if you look back at the Great Depression, which lasted for 11 years (way longer than the current

finacial woes), and had a way higher rate of unemployment in the US than you are currently facing,

up to 25 percent at one time.

Yet you don't see the same levels of unfettered violence as you do now ... Why not ?

 

Because people had a greater level of respect and value for human life back then.

That's what it ultimately boils down to, not some racial issue or thing.

 

Though other issues like "last hired and first fired" concerning Black people during that time

was an issue also the fact that at one time over 500,000 Mexican-Americans were illegaly

deported so that White people could get jobs isnt a pretty picture.

 

Violence has always been a problem, the entire World over ... and to read something into

it other than mankinds penchant for his own self destruction is to miss it completely.