WhoSaidWhat

Registered bored user

whosaidwhat wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how the fact that they talked to Russians is supposed to be news. Do they have evidence that their "contact" was directly related to rigging the election? If so, then, yes, its news. If not, its a non-issue. Please tell me what candidate in the past has never had any contact with any member or representative of a foreign government. Talking to them is not a crime, or even a bad thing. It all depends on what they were talking about.
whosaidwhat wrote:
kalron27 Yeah, she wasn't so lucky with the hormone issue, though. Both of her ovaries were left, but never really worked correctly, due to her doctor having to "chemically induce" menopause to help control the pain and bleeding while we were fighting the insurance company. Her ovaries kind of "limped along" until the last couple of years, when they stopped working completely. She's only 40. But, she manages with hormone therapy.
whosaidwhat wrote:
melcervini You are one of a kind, Mel!
whosaidwhat wrote:
melcervini If only I could my wife to understand that... Oh, well, she knows that I'm a horn-dog, and she still loves me!
whosaidwhat wrote:
kalron27 My wife went through the same thing. The thing with her was, her regular gyno was all for the hysterectomy, for the same reason as your wife's, but our insurance company wouldn't play ball. They kept coming up with the same bullshit you are talking about: "you're too young (she was 26 at the time, iirc) to have a hysterectomy, you may want another kid one day (we already had 2, which is plenty), we don't want you to be on hormone therapy for the rest of your life, etc., ad nauseum". Meanwhile, she's in constant pain, and hemorrhaging pretty badly. My employer at the time switched to a different insurance company, and the new company was basically asking, "why has this been going on this long? Perform the surgery already!"
whosaidwhat wrote:
scheckydamon Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing that, either!
whosaidwhat wrote:
melcervini Not really desperate; I have a lovely wife, who I get to see naked on a regular basis. I just really, really love boobs!
whosaidwhat wrote:
Is that actually "legal"? I'm thinking that another team might be able to protest that win, on the grounds that he "skipped part of the track". Don't get me wrong; I think that such a protest would be ridiculous, as he clearly traveled further than he would've had he stayed on the track, making it NOT a "short cut". I'm just wondering if another team might have a leg to stand on with such a claim. Anyone?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Makes me wonder if this might be related to another medical condition. I can't recall the name of the condition, but it happens when two distinct fetuses (feti?) develop, but one "absorbs" the other very early on. This often results in people having body "structures" in odd places. I seem to recall hearing about one such case where a person had almost a full set of teeth, fairly well developed, removed from their brain. Very bizarre. 
whosaidwhat wrote:
melcervini So I'm not bad for wanting to see YOU lose articles of clothing? <leers lecherously at mel>
whosaidwhat wrote:
justanotherhuman Ok, you want proof? You missed everything I said about all the "proof" out there being skewed, in one direction or the other. Here's some "proof" for you. Try reading "The South Was Right". I don't recall the author. It will tell you all about how the slaves in the 1800s were ok with being slaves, didn't want to be freed, and even loved their masters like family! There is even a "bibliography" at the back of the book, and tons of "evidence" to support these ludicrous claims. But you go ahead and read it, and believe it if you wish; after all, it has "references", so it must be true! This illustrates my entire point (that you choose to ignore) about "sources". I can find you "sources" that support either side of the argument. None are completely truthful, on either side of the issue. Some are more truthful than others, but none are completely truthful. So, there's you a "source" to read. My suggestion is to take what it tells you with a grain of salt. Thats what I will do with any of the "sources" you have provided, if I check them out; take what they tell me with a grain of salt. Thats why I didn't bother reading them; I won't believe them. Find "sources" that support my side of the argument, and I'll be leery of most of the "facts" that they present, too. This is a very devicive subject, with most people coming down on one side of it, or the other. There are very few that are truly "middle of the road". I at least try to be. Am I perfect at it? Probably not. I have admitted that whites were wrong to enslave blacks, or anyone else, and also admitted that there is racial inequality in today's world. My point is simply that the inequality DOES go both ways. Yes, it swings further to one side than to the other, but it still swings! You, however, have demonstrated that you are clearly firmly rooted on one side, and refuse to budge. Until you realize that your "sources" are flawed, as are any that support any other side of the argument, you will continue to be "stuck" where you are now. Why are you so insistent that I provide you with incorrect data? Hell, I can even find you references that claim that a black man invented the incandescent light bulb, and Thomas Edison stole the invention from him. There is a HUGE lie in the entire premise that this claim is based on. The claim is that Edison STOLE the INVENTION from him. This is impossible, as Edison did NOT "invent" the incandescent bulb, nor did he ever claim to. He IMPROVED the incandescent bulb, and made it, more or less, what it is today. With a blatant, outright lie like that, how much of such a book are you willing to believe? When you admit that your "sources", as well as any I might find to support my arguments, are flawed, and to be taken with a grain of salt, we can talk more. Until then....
whosaidwhat wrote:
justanotherhuman "Lol, Insurance companies do charge more if you drive a red car." Hey, look, I gave evidence to support my argument. Actually, you did, but thats beside the point. No, I didn't read any of the "sources" that you mentioned, and there is a very good reason. Much like statistics, I can find you any number of "studies", "books", and "arguments" to not only support my arguments, but that also claim that every "source" that you have cited is a complete lie, intended to make white people look bad! I'm not claiming that, but I can find things that do. Hell, I have a book at home (suggested reading by a friend) that claims that slaves loved their owners, and didn't want slavery to end! It even has "evidence" to back its outrageous claims! Personally, I don't very much believe what this particular book has to say. Shall I use it for "evidence"? This is why I don't present any "sources" to you. Keep in mind: history is written by the victors, and, as such, is subject to being flawed. With this in mind, you have yet to present any actual "evidence". I have never said "nah, I don't believe it" to anything you have said. In fact, I have agreed with a good bit of it. You apparently weren't paying attention (or perhaps the board ate that part of my last comment; I see that the last part is missing) when I said that yes, blacks certainly do have it much worse than whites. However, how can you call me not getting hired due to my skin color not racist, but it IS racist when you don't get hired because of your skin color? I don't care what you call such practices, it is blatant racism! This is where I claim that it works both ways! Please, explain to me how me not getting a job because of my skin color is not racism? Not another bullshit "source", but an explanation, in your words. Also, I never tried to equate "what I go through on a day to day basis with what blacks go through". The examples I gave there were ANECDOTAL. See, I do know what it means. Perhaps you should go check the definition again? I also said that yes, blacks do have it much worse than whites, but it still works both ways. How about I try to start the "United Caucasian College Fund" intended for and only available to whites? Think that would go over very well? No? Again, how is this not racism, when we are told that we can't do something, due to the color of our skin? Do I have a problem with the United Negro College Fund (does it ever exist any more?)? No, I do not; in fact, I thinks its a good idea. Its the double standard that I don't like.

"If your grandfather stole a painting from a museum, and then bequeathed it to his heir, then the museum finds said painting, they would expect the return of that painting. Even though the grandchildren were not responsible. That's a better analogy."
In your example, we should make the grandchildren also have to pay a large sum of money, along with the return of the painting. Then, and only then, would it be a "better analogy". Until that point, you are comparing apples to oranges.

"Again with the anecdotal evidence, just because that's the way it is in your county does not mean that's how it is countrywide."
I never  claimed that thats the way it is everywhere. You are the one claiming that schools being segregated and unevenly funded is "countrywide". I was simply explaining to you that it is not. Yes, I know that it works that way in some places. You, however, don't seem to be aware that it doesn't work that way EVERYWHERE. If your "sources" claim that it does, you should begin to question your sources, as they are lying to you. Again, this is why I don't have much faith in your "sources".

"Such a blanket statement, saying that black people are lazy."
Where did I say this? Oh, thats right, I didn't. Never ONCE did I say, or even imply, "black people are lazy". I did, however, say that SOME black people are lazy, then went on to say that some white people are, too. However, to my point that I was trying to make on this subject. Perhaps you can shed some light on some the things that confuse me about (some) young blacks. Why, when there is a smallish group of black youths (6-10) walking down the street, and a largish group of white youths (15-20) walking down the same street, near the black youths, is the (smaller) black group almost invariably louder than the (larger group of) white youths? I'm genuinely curious about this. I travel quite a lot with my job, over most of the Southeastern quarter of the US, plus a little more on occasion, and I've seen this phenomenon pretty much everywhere I go. It also floors me the ridiculous amounts of money some black youths spend on cars. Do you realize that the oversized wheels and minimal sidewall tires that a very large number of black youths insist on driving can cost upward of $10,000? My brother was talking to a young black guy a couple of years ago, when the guy mentioned how hard a time he was having paying his bills. My brother asked him an honest and intelligent question: "why don't you sell your car (full-size mid-80s, with horrible gas mileage and those ridiculous oversized wheels and minimal sidewall tires I mentioned), and get something more practical? You know, better gas mileage, and cheaper to maintain?" The guy looked at my brother, and said, "are you crazy?!! I'm not going to own a car thats not nicer than my house!!" Now, I ask you, what kind of stupid shit is that? I didn't say that "blacks are lazy", but I will say that many of them seem to make "poor life choices". Do some whites do the same? Of course they do, and anyone who says otherwise is a flat out liar, but I have seen far more examples of this type of behavior from blacks. These are they types of things that are holding blacks back, more than anything else: poor decisions. Like trying to blame "the evil white man" for everything wrong in your life. Grab your own bootstraps, pull them up, and help yourself, instead of demanding that everyone else do it for you!
whosaidwhat wrote:
Looks like a hell of a lot of fun to me! I'm slightly saddened, however, that there were no females losing articles of clothing...(yes, I know; I'm a bad person...)
whosaidwhat wrote:
oobaka How about the whole section of the (huge) drum section that was all female?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Did anyone else notice the kid on drums at the 4:49 mark? Awesome! Also awesome the way that everyone there seem to be having such fun, and really enjoying themselves. Making music, for the simple joy of making music!
whosaidwhat wrote:
justanotherhuman If you look hard enough, you can find "statistics" to support either side of any argument. Go look at "statistics" about car crashes (at least in the past; this may no longer apply). Statistics clearly show that there are far more red cars involved in crashes than any other color. Does red actually cause more crashes? Or is it perhaps the fact that there are more red cars on the road than any other color? Which do you think it is? However, "statistically" speaking, shouldn't insurance companies charge more to insure red vehicles? They are, after all, involved in more crashes than any other color. Now that you understand how much stock I put in "statistics", we'll move on. 

No, I'm not bringing up "anecdotal" cases of racism. If anything I have cited is "anecdotal", then everything you bring up is as well. Racism is racism. Period. It doesn't matter if its an ongoing trend, or an isolated incident; its still racism. You can quote all the "statistics", books, and videos that you want, but it will never change this point. I never said that racism "works equally both ways", nor would I. Yes, blacks certainly get it much worse than whites, and I never claimed otherwise. I am simply pointing out that whites suffer from racism, as well as blacks. If you can't see this, then you are living in a bubble, and have looked at a few too many "statistics" for your own good.

"Blacks and whites do not go to the same schools". Interesting. Every school in the county I live is has about the same number of blacks versus whites. Thats over a dozen schools in one county alone. Every surrounding county is the same. Every county surrounding them is the same, too. There are no "blacks only" or "whites only" schools in the area; neither by "force", or "choice". They are in the same classrooms, with the same teachers, books, materials, access, and resources. The graduation rate of blacks is abysmal when compared to whites. What do you find different between the two? Except that the majority of the blacks don't bother to apply themselves. Are they  capable? Absolutely. They just don't bother. How is this the fault of whites?

"Theft of wealth". How is my analogy different? You are nitpicking by calling my example an "isolated incident". Yes, it is "isolated", but still very pertinent. Apparently, in your mind, one situation counts because blacks are involved, and the other doesn't, because they aren't. I can see no other difference between them. Race is irrelevant to the situation. Either you can be charged for your ancestors crime, or I owe nothing for what my ancestors did. I can't work both ways. 

Lastly, WPA. Where did the funding for those projects come from? The federal government. Where did they get the money from? Taxes. Were some of the taxes derived from slave-earned profits? No, considering that slavery had been over for almost 100 years by the time the WPA came about. Now, how did slavery pay for any of that? You must be fairly young to believe some of the things that you do. You must have came up after the history books were altered to paint whites in a harsher light, and blacks as even more of victims than they really were. Yes, it happened; I was in school when it started happening. And yes, I know that blacks were horribly oppressed. What was done to your ancestors was wrong; very, very wrong. However, consider the fact that they no longer even MENTION in school the fact that the majority of black slaves were sold into slavery by their own people. All the history books mention now is how the evil white man went to a
whosaidwhat wrote:
thezigrat Good point. Perfect example of the double standard that pisses me off.
whosaidwhat wrote:
megrendel OMG!!!! That is HILARIOUS!
whosaidwhat wrote:
boredusernames01 Thats what I've been trying to figure out since this "new video" came to light. What difference is it supposed to make?
whosaidwhat wrote:
thezigrat Mmmm, Spam with pineapple....
whosaidwhat wrote:
justanotherhuman I don't dispute that racial oppression still exists. In fact, "affirmative action" IS racial oppression. The sentence, "I can't hire you because you are BLACK." would be considered to be extremely racist, and it certainly is. The sentence, "I can't hire you because you are WHITE." is also extremely racist, but it is considered to be "affirmative action". See the difference? This is what most people seem to miss; racism swings both ways. Blacks don't own exclusive rights to being victims of racism. Racism is defined, in a nutshell, as "holding back or oppressing members of one race, in favor of members of another race, or advancing one race over another". If I can't get a job that I am actually better qualified for because of the color of my skin, that is blatant racism, no matter the color of my skin. You can read whatever books you want, and/or spin it however you want, and/or call it whatever you want, but it will still be blatant racism. 

To your second point. "More Black people are in prison today than at the height of slavery in the mid 19th century."  Yep, there sure are. Two reasons. One, there is a much higher black population now than "at the height of slavery in the mid 19th century". Two, who put them in prison? Ultimately, themselves. Yes, I understand your points (kill a man, and go free in under 5 years, but get caught with pot, and serve 10 years? WTF?), but, in at least most cases, they are there because they committed a crime. Are you advocating that we let them off because they are black? Whoops, thats racism again.

Third point, "Many of the industries, cities, and infrastructure that you benefit from came from slave labor." Um, what? Most of what you are referring to came from Roosevelt's "WPA", created under his "New Deal" plan. There was no slavery involved; the people working under the WPA were paid a fair wage.

Fourth, I'll give you that point; wealth does, in at least some cases, travel from generation to generation. However, lets look at it this way (all hypothetical, or course). Through new forensics techniques, it is discovered that my great-great grandmother, who was raped and killed over one hundred years ago, was actually attacked and killed by your great grandfather. There is indisputable proof of this. You are the only surviving descendant of your great grandfather. You are going to jail, due to what your great grandfather did over one hundred years ago. Care to defend that idea? There is absolutely no difference between the two. Most of the issues I've seen with "disadvantaged blacks" is their own fault. They get a poor education, because they are too busy trying to get in girl's pants, doing drugs, trying to get a car that cost thousands more than they could reasonably afford, and complaining about how they are not getting the same education as whites (when they are in the same classrooms as the whites) to actually pay attention and get the education that is right in front of them. Why is it that I know blacks from school who are now very successful, while their next door neighbor from childhood, who had the same opportunities, is not? I also know whites from school who are in worse shape today than some of the blacks. Its all about how you apply yourself. As for a bank loan, would you loan money to someone who can't pay you back? Its called common sense.

Yes, discrimination is alive and well in America today, I totally agree. I have never claimed that it is not. But, please open your eyes, and see that it works both ways. Again, see my definition of "racism" up above. There is racial oppression going on on both sides of the fence. I don't need to read a book to see it; I live in the middle of it in the deep south.
whosaidwhat wrote:
megrendel That's my point. There is nothing "prohibiting" blacks from joining the "whites" society, or vice-versa. It becomes a problem when there IS a prohibition.
whosaidwhat wrote:
daegog  Actually, in every example you give, both actually happened. Did one group have more of a effect than the other? Undoubtedly. But, in at least some of the cases, the blacks' efforts certainly helped white people see that they were wrong. I'd have to call it a group effort, in most of these cases.
whosaidwhat wrote:
megrendel  Ok, good point. However, are any of those "whites only" groups actually banning black members, or is it just that none have tried to join? There are no blacks in the volunteer fire department that I am a member of, but only because the one that joined a few years ago didn't stay long. Not because we made them him feel unwelcome; we are a big, happy family, and everyone who joins is made to feel welcome and a part of the family. Things just changed in his life, and he drifted away from us. Is it the same situation with these groups, or is it actually layed out in the group's charters that blacks are not allowed to join? I have noticed a general tendency for blacks and whites to "self segregate", but it does appear to be slowly going away, which I think is a good thing.