Racism or Sexual preference
- Thread starter black_hung
- Start date
godiluvabig1
1st Like
Pappy,
I see kinda on the lines of what you stated earlier, but I don't really have problems with BET, black miss america, and whatnot...
what really bugs me (and I PROMISE, this is not meant to step on any toes...) what really gets me pissed off, is that I am currently applying for the NROTC college scholarship (yeah, I'm in the navy... basic training in 2 weeks, but they'll pull me out to go to college)...
I've been told that I am a "shoe in" because of my academic record (had a 3.92 gpa in high school) and because of having maintained that gpa despite my circumstances...
I am, by no means, a minority (unless you count being half dutch and half greek... but that's a different story)...
but the thing that bugs me about it (and actually has me not getting my hopes up) is that I may get held back because someone of a minority (with lesser qualifications) might get the scholarship in my place because only so many "white people" can receive the scholarship... there has to be a certain amount of asian, blacks, and/or hispanics to receive the scholarship as well... (yet more proof that segregation did not end in '54)...
there are so many colleges and scholarships that hold back deserving young people in order to meet certain criteria to keep the school/scholarship "politically correct," and the sad part about that is the number of young people (of all races, even) are held back from acheiving greatness in their lifetime...
even the same with the "Historically Black University" you went to pene... how many young blacks who could've gone there and acheived something great were held back for whites and hispanics or asians to attend that university?
My point is (as long as the story may be) is that, in different situations, any race may be seen as a minority. No matter how much politicians try to act as if discrimination and segregation do not exist, it's still there. It shows every day, sometimes even in the most minute ways.
I see kinda on the lines of what you stated earlier, but I don't really have problems with BET, black miss america, and whatnot...
what really bugs me (and I PROMISE, this is not meant to step on any toes...) what really gets me pissed off, is that I am currently applying for the NROTC college scholarship (yeah, I'm in the navy... basic training in 2 weeks, but they'll pull me out to go to college)...
I've been told that I am a "shoe in" because of my academic record (had a 3.92 gpa in high school) and because of having maintained that gpa despite my circumstances...
I am, by no means, a minority (unless you count being half dutch and half greek... but that's a different story)...
but the thing that bugs me about it (and actually has me not getting my hopes up) is that I may get held back because someone of a minority (with lesser qualifications) might get the scholarship in my place because only so many "white people" can receive the scholarship... there has to be a certain amount of asian, blacks, and/or hispanics to receive the scholarship as well... (yet more proof that segregation did not end in '54)...
there are so many colleges and scholarships that hold back deserving young people in order to meet certain criteria to keep the school/scholarship "politically correct," and the sad part about that is the number of young people (of all races, even) are held back from acheiving greatness in their lifetime...
even the same with the "Historically Black University" you went to pene... how many young blacks who could've gone there and acheived something great were held back for whites and hispanics or asians to attend that university?
My point is (as long as the story may be) is that, in different situations, any race may be seen as a minority. No matter how much politicians try to act as if discrimination and segregation do not exist, it's still there. It shows every day, sometimes even in the most minute ways.
Pene_Negro_Grande
Experimental Member
I really can see what you are saying...I really think anyone no matter of race can go to college if they chose to...It might not be the one you want to attend but you can definitely find one out there that will accept you...I didn't get into my first choice or maybe my 2nd - I think I only applied to like 3 (but I did get in the one my mum wanted me to)...And I think women are considered somewhat minorities in scholarship situations but I could be wrong...
[attachmentid=129]
hey you dont have to worry
in a year or two
we will have to escort wherever you go
kiss
lauren
:wacko:
hey you dont have to worry
in a year or two
we will have to escort wherever you go
kiss
lauren
Don't be ignorant. Of course races exist. I don't want to get off of topic, but saying races don't exist won't make them go away. Stop being childish.
[post=285075]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Dude. I know you're 72% Martian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, being a Brit, I've always wondered about "positive discrimination". It's weird looking at it from this sinde of the pond, is the poverty gap that wide in the richest nation in the world?
Okay, so being biased towards a type of people isn't completely unfair. Same time, depends on whether you want a relationship or a quick fuck. Wouldn't it get boring if all your boy/girl friends look the same?
If you were a white male, I could see that. But this is actually quite ironic, since the main beneficiaries of affirmative action in college admissions are actually white women, not blacks.
godiluvabig1
1st Like
If you were a white male, I could see that. But this is actually quite ironic, since the main beneficiaries of affirmative action in college admissions are actually white women, not blacks.
[post=285679]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I have yet to experience that... the story was just an example of how segregation with admissions or scholarship stuff are getting to be "politically correct," when segregation supposedly ended...
also, I'm not worried at all about getting into college... to be honest, it's the NROTC scholarship I'm more worried about...
Well I for one am against affirmative action in higher education, as well as preference given to relatives of alumni or people who donate large amounts of money to the school. See also: George W. Bush.
Of course simply eliminating AA won't solve the problem, but relying on it to fix a problem, when evidence shows that it doesn't, is not beneficial.
Sorry if made you feel as if I did not value your opinions, Luvabig1, and good luck on that scholarship!
Godiluvabig1.
First and foremost, I would like to wish you good luck on receiving some form of assistance for you higher education. I agree that affirmative action does have some rather ugly side effects, however what Dr. Dilnick stated is right. Actually, women are considered a minority and do also receive some preferential treatment. I think what is in play here is that Affimative action seeks to solve through monetary means what does not seem to be dealt with in life and much of what we are seeing in affimative action is the attempt to balance the problems of resource allocation . I do think it should continue to be used on a socioeconomic basis. I actually did not get some scholarships when I went to college because my parents made too much money and my grades were too high( yes believe it or not) ,So I did not benefit from many of the programs set in place for minorities at my school .My scholarships were merit based and I had to compete against black and white and asian alike. I think at this point the the nations growing hispanic population is the latest of a long line of people who are being given an initial helping hand. I am glad that they do get an opportunity to receive education against the odds of poverty and indfference that would have held them down but for an initial helping hand. Universities may allow certain percentages of various ethnic groups into school through a special program but they certainly will not keep a student who can not make the grade nor will they give them a diploma. it is not perfect but is the fact that children who go through inadequate school systems or do not have the same access to resources are being asked to compete when they hit the workplace as if they had. I just think of it as them receiving the school monies and resources that they didnt receive during their formative years that I was lucky enough to receive.
Naughty
First and foremost, I would like to wish you good luck on receiving some form of assistance for you higher education. I agree that affirmative action does have some rather ugly side effects, however what Dr. Dilnick stated is right. Actually, women are considered a minority and do also receive some preferential treatment. I think what is in play here is that Affimative action seeks to solve through monetary means what does not seem to be dealt with in life and much of what we are seeing in affimative action is the attempt to balance the problems of resource allocation . I do think it should continue to be used on a socioeconomic basis. I actually did not get some scholarships when I went to college because my parents made too much money and my grades were too high( yes believe it or not) ,So I did not benefit from many of the programs set in place for minorities at my school .My scholarships were merit based and I had to compete against black and white and asian alike. I think at this point the the nations growing hispanic population is the latest of a long line of people who are being given an initial helping hand. I am glad that they do get an opportunity to receive education against the odds of poverty and indfference that would have held them down but for an initial helping hand. Universities may allow certain percentages of various ethnic groups into school through a special program but they certainly will not keep a student who can not make the grade nor will they give them a diploma. it is not perfect but is the fact that children who go through inadequate school systems or do not have the same access to resources are being asked to compete when they hit the workplace as if they had. I just think of it as them receiving the school monies and resources that they didnt receive during their formative years that I was lucky enough to receive.
Naughty
godiluvabig1
1st Like
Thanks on the support for my scholarship...
I understand the whole merit based thing... I had a 3.92 GPA in high school, so the scholarship is pretty much merit based, along with leadership potential, since it is for NROTC...
But the good news... whether I get the scholarship or not, I still get an education... If I get it, I get a 4 year college degree and get to enter the Navy as an officer instead of an enlisted member... (which means I'll be back from boot camp very soon, since I won't find out until during basic... but they'll pull me out to go to school)...
If I don't get it, I still get training as a nuclear engineer (that's my chosen career field, as scary as it may seem), and while I may be enlisted, I start out as a Seaman (E3 for those who know paygrades) instead of a Seaman Recruit, which is the Navy's version of a private...
So whether I get the scholarship or not, I'll be getting an education... My main reason for wanting the scholarship is so I can be an officer and have more opportunity to make an impact on our world...
And, Dr. Dilznick, you didn't make me feel as if you didn't value my opinion... I understand that as an older, more experienced person, you were explaining to me what I may not know or understand, and I appreciate that... the main reason it bugs me is because every step of the application process, the officer recruiter was constantly asking me if I am a minority...
I understand the whole merit based thing... I had a 3.92 GPA in high school, so the scholarship is pretty much merit based, along with leadership potential, since it is for NROTC...
But the good news... whether I get the scholarship or not, I still get an education... If I get it, I get a 4 year college degree and get to enter the Navy as an officer instead of an enlisted member... (which means I'll be back from boot camp very soon, since I won't find out until during basic... but they'll pull me out to go to school)...
If I don't get it, I still get training as a nuclear engineer (that's my chosen career field, as scary as it may seem), and while I may be enlisted, I start out as a Seaman (E3 for those who know paygrades) instead of a Seaman Recruit, which is the Navy's version of a private...
So whether I get the scholarship or not, I'll be getting an education... My main reason for wanting the scholarship is so I can be an officer and have more opportunity to make an impact on our world...
And, Dr. Dilznick, you didn't make me feel as if you didn't value my opinion... I understand that as an older, more experienced person, you were explaining to me what I may not know or understand, and I appreciate that... the main reason it bugs me is because every step of the application process, the officer recruiter was constantly asking me if I am a minority...
Affirmative Action:
I can't imagine that something that happens to a few Black students is a horrible thing. Has anyone mentioned the state of public school education in our big cities? Would anyone like to send their children to the public schools of Baltimore, DC, Chicago, or Detroit? Perhaps affirmative action wouldn't even be considered if public education worked better.
I can't imagine that something that happens to a few Black students is a horrible thing. Has anyone mentioned the state of public school education in our big cities? Would anyone like to send their children to the public schools of Baltimore, DC, Chicago, or Detroit? Perhaps affirmative action wouldn't even be considered if public education worked better.
- jonb,
Actually, ChimeraTX, pretty much all affirmative action was gutted by the Bakke decision; basically today you're only allowed to pick the black student over the white student if the black student shows equal or superior performance. Reagan claimed some colleges set aside quotas for black kids, but Reagan also claimed trees pollute more than cars, X-ray lasers really exist, ketchup was a vegetable, and he knew nothing about Iran-Contra.
Anyway, while we're here, what about legacies? Athletic scholarships? Not to mention being the son or daughter of a wealthy philanthropist who just happens to have recently given a donation.
America has never been about merit; if we could magically give everyone the same IQ, some 95% of the inequality we see today would still exist.
Anyway, while we're here, what about legacies? Athletic scholarships? Not to mention being the son or daughter of a wealthy philanthropist who just happens to have recently given a donation.
America has never been about merit; if we could magically give everyone the same IQ, some 95% of the inequality we see today would still exist.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
As usual, Jon you point out what is real right or wrong. I find it appalling that your last statement is true. But I can't deny that it is true. And affirmative action has pretty well been gutted.
However, I believe that if I have the money and I want to give an endowment and the interest goes to any particular gender, racial or ehtnic group, fine, it is my private money and there is nothing legally wrong with it. Perhaps morally, but we will leave that discussion alone for now.
However, when it comes to tax money, we have to see that no discrimination is taking place. I like the generic forms. Examples are big scholarships for students who took the rigorous college prep coruses and maintained at least a certain grade point and have a family income of less then a certain amount. This leave such arbitary things as hair color or skin color out of it. A weathy black family doesn't need special help. But a poor white family does. By following the type of guidelines I have mentioned, the money goes to who needs it. If in that state 75 % of all students who are below that income bracket happen to be black that is just a statistic, not an arbitary decision to only help blacks on who gets the money.
In the next county or state it may be poor Asians, or poor whites or poor whoever that qualifies for those scholarships.
There are plenty of ways to see that poor self deserving students get an education and leave gender, ethnic and racial qualities out of it when it comes to public funding.
And the federal loan program makes college possible for any student willing to borrow the money and pay it back over a long period of time at almost no interest.
However, I believe that if I have the money and I want to give an endowment and the interest goes to any particular gender, racial or ehtnic group, fine, it is my private money and there is nothing legally wrong with it. Perhaps morally, but we will leave that discussion alone for now.
However, when it comes to tax money, we have to see that no discrimination is taking place. I like the generic forms. Examples are big scholarships for students who took the rigorous college prep coruses and maintained at least a certain grade point and have a family income of less then a certain amount. This leave such arbitary things as hair color or skin color out of it. A weathy black family doesn't need special help. But a poor white family does. By following the type of guidelines I have mentioned, the money goes to who needs it. If in that state 75 % of all students who are below that income bracket happen to be black that is just a statistic, not an arbitary decision to only help blacks on who gets the money.
In the next county or state it may be poor Asians, or poor whites or poor whoever that qualifies for those scholarships.
There are plenty of ways to see that poor self deserving students get an education and leave gender, ethnic and racial qualities out of it when it comes to public funding.
And the federal loan program makes college possible for any student willing to borrow the money and pay it back over a long period of time at almost no interest.
- jonb,
Bakke was from the 70s, yet the Far Right chose to ignore it. I kinda like the idea of set-asides for poorer students; it'll never happen in neoliberal America, though. I mean, this is the country where people actually took a puff from the hookah that is the New Economy, where the proletariat simply doesn't exist. What used to be the proletariat is now defined as consumers. Truly, Derrida must be proud.
Discrimination on sexual preference based on race is as harmful as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla. We can't and shouldn't try to regulate people's thoughts or private nonviolent actions, just the action carried out with public dollars. You can't make people not hate, and we can't drop everything until we've wrung the last drops of hate out of everyone.
Someone, somewhere always hates you because of what you are, who you are or what you believe. Deal with it.
As far as economics go, there will come a time in the next few decades, if things continue on their current trajectory, where everyone making < $250K will be low income compared to the elites who run the show. And as fewer and fewer have access to the middle class, a supermajority opposed to neoliberal economics will emerge.
So long as those hets keep on breeding and there is not sufficient resources to provide a middle class life for them all, we will continue to see the degredation of the middle class. My belief is that the dispersed affluence of the second half of the 20th century is an abberation.
Whether or not this is a proletariat is another question. Marx wrote in the mid 19th century. Little else politically that was on the cutting edge at that point is relevant now--see the Republican Party and Labor Unions for clearcut examples of institutions that have either detached from their original principles or been subverted by access to power.
One thing that I've found to be true is that until the leftists realize that Leninist forms of organization are inherently antidemocratic amidst a relatively educated and relatively affluent society. Radical social and political organizing in the 21st century will take a more anarchistic form rather than a pedantic, faux vanguard tendencies of the Leninists.
The Democrats have folded as a national party. The Republicans are playing for keeps. And the Greens are not yet strong enough to provide a counterbalance to the corrupt corporate kleptocracy except at the local level.
Anyway as far as affirmative action goes, when San Francisco's first black mayor was elected in 1995, the percentage of population that was black was 12%. When he left office in 2004, the percentage had dropped to 7.2%. Had this happened under a white mayor, there would have been riots in the streets.
Class is the main determinant but there is still room for race to matter in calculating remediation for injustices past and present.
That said, this hairy hung muscular white guy sure digs smooth tite hung brothas and the feeling is mutual.
Someone, somewhere always hates you because of what you are, who you are or what you believe. Deal with it.
As far as economics go, there will come a time in the next few decades, if things continue on their current trajectory, where everyone making < $250K will be low income compared to the elites who run the show. And as fewer and fewer have access to the middle class, a supermajority opposed to neoliberal economics will emerge.
So long as those hets keep on breeding and there is not sufficient resources to provide a middle class life for them all, we will continue to see the degredation of the middle class. My belief is that the dispersed affluence of the second half of the 20th century is an abberation.
Whether or not this is a proletariat is another question. Marx wrote in the mid 19th century. Little else politically that was on the cutting edge at that point is relevant now--see the Republican Party and Labor Unions for clearcut examples of institutions that have either detached from their original principles or been subverted by access to power.
One thing that I've found to be true is that until the leftists realize that Leninist forms of organization are inherently antidemocratic amidst a relatively educated and relatively affluent society. Radical social and political organizing in the 21st century will take a more anarchistic form rather than a pedantic, faux vanguard tendencies of the Leninists.
The Democrats have folded as a national party. The Republicans are playing for keeps. And the Greens are not yet strong enough to provide a counterbalance to the corrupt corporate kleptocracy except at the local level.
Anyway as far as affirmative action goes, when San Francisco's first black mayor was elected in 1995, the percentage of population that was black was 12%. When he left office in 2004, the percentage had dropped to 7.2%. Had this happened under a white mayor, there would have been riots in the streets.
Class is the main determinant but there is still room for race to matter in calculating remediation for injustices past and present.
That said, this hairy hung muscular white guy sure digs smooth tite hung brothas and the feeling is mutual.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Jon, I need some help here in understanding some of your terms as well as Punk 9. Jon you regularly point out your disdain for neoliberalism, yet your disdain for the Repulbican Party seems to be even more so. When you elaborate your poliitcal outlook seems to be not that much different as my own. I must confess that is has been long enough since school that terminology is a hindrance to me now as new terms come into being and new idiologies emerge. Neo means new. The old liberal school of politcal action began in the the latter part of the 19th century and held sway in many peoples minds until World War I. In fact the Liberal Party of Great Britian became a minority party and the Labor Party took its place. Thre are many simillarities between these two groups. There are sme very similar idiolpogies getweeen the old Liberal movement and the Labor movement, but there were some major differences as well.
But back to old liberalism. The thought was the world would continue to get better and better. Gradually everyone would be emerged to the Middle Class. Of course some old liberals were only refering to Euro-Americans and others inlcuded other groups an the really way out old Liberalism included all human beings. The old liberalism was very educated. In the Christian wing, it took the form of social change more than Spiritual change. Old Christian liberalism took the form that humans would continue getting better: A sort of Utopia. Here again old Liberalism was primarlily the well educated, the upper middle class, some really wealthy people and poor people who had been to school or under the influcence of Liberals they knew.
Old liberalism was not socialist as such. Though the two groups often were on the same page and there was not much anomosity between the two groups in most progressive countires at least. The socialsts then were for the take over of the major inducstries by the state. The liberals just wanted fair laws and salaries to spead the wealth. Theoreticaly, both should achieved basically the same living conditions for the workers. But under liberalism, the upper class would have remained in their present state. Under Labor there still was some anomosity for the owners of the industries and the very wealthy.
Now we have the term neo liberalism floating all over this thread. We know that the Lenin/Stalin model for commuuism failed. It didn't even follow the Marxist model at all.
So, we know that the Repulican Party at this point is a coolition of reliigous right whose purpose is to make their moral positions the official posiitons the law of the land, and then there is the old "liberal" wing of the party, Spector from Pennsylvania is an example. This group goes back to the oriiginal formation of the party. It was antislavory and wanted the blacks freed in the South. But it also was big business. Many "liberal" Repulicans learned to really get serious about working condiitons at their plants. Some realized that happy workers made better workers and better profits. Some "liberal" Republicans really cared for the workers. They just thought that it was a company problem and not a government problem. Many "liberal" Republicans made many of the social reforms possible. The Civil Rights Act which is a "DEMOCRATIC" bill would not have passed without almost complete Republican approval. The Senators that opposed the bill were the 22 Democratic Senators from the south in 1964, Now 18 of those Senators are Republicans. So there is the southern wing of the Republican Party which is a hodge podge of religious right, old "confederate" Democrats, and others who are in the natioal wing of the party. Then there is a wing that want all the conveniences of governmetn free. They are the young who don't realize that nothing comes free. Someone pays for it. Then there are the very rich who wnat to shift all the tax burden away from them. Conveniently high social security contributions, some form of sales tax that hits the poor and government bonds owned by the rich and making a nice profit for the rich is how they would finance government.
Then there are the Democrats. In total disarray. The various wings are not in harmony with each other. Democrats include neo Marxists, blacks, other minorities, socialists, and what I would refer to as old line liberals. Liberals with a good association with the term that wants only the best for every American and peace throughout the world.
But this term neoliberalism seems to be referring to Republicans. It is a term I don't remember studying 30 years ago and I don't truly understand who all is in the group, their objective and if they are in both political parties.
From what Jon has writteen, he seems to have favored Kerry over Bush. And his disdain for Bush, the Republican Party, and the religious right is very obvious.
And anyone who has read what I have written shows that my disdain for Bush, the Republican Party and the religious right is about the same as Jon.
Jon does show some problems he has with basic Christiantity. I am a devout. I believe in the Jesus wing of the religion as opposed to the Pualine version. There is quite a difference.
First I want to know just what neoliberalism is and who is driving it.
Second, I want to know where Jon would lead our country politically if he had the ability to call the shots.
I know I am not the only person who doesn't fully understand neoliberalism. I am quite sure there are readers out there who are confused by the movements I write about as well.
If readers have questions about what I would do and what I mean by certain posts. I will be glad to try to answer. I already know the post is too long for those who aren't that interested in this subject. But there is so to understand and comprehend about what is really going on in our country in 2005.
But back to old liberalism. The thought was the world would continue to get better and better. Gradually everyone would be emerged to the Middle Class. Of course some old liberals were only refering to Euro-Americans and others inlcuded other groups an the really way out old Liberalism included all human beings. The old liberalism was very educated. In the Christian wing, it took the form of social change more than Spiritual change. Old Christian liberalism took the form that humans would continue getting better: A sort of Utopia. Here again old Liberalism was primarlily the well educated, the upper middle class, some really wealthy people and poor people who had been to school or under the influcence of Liberals they knew.
Old liberalism was not socialist as such. Though the two groups often were on the same page and there was not much anomosity between the two groups in most progressive countires at least. The socialsts then were for the take over of the major inducstries by the state. The liberals just wanted fair laws and salaries to spead the wealth. Theoreticaly, both should achieved basically the same living conditions for the workers. But under liberalism, the upper class would have remained in their present state. Under Labor there still was some anomosity for the owners of the industries and the very wealthy.
Now we have the term neo liberalism floating all over this thread. We know that the Lenin/Stalin model for commuuism failed. It didn't even follow the Marxist model at all.
So, we know that the Repulican Party at this point is a coolition of reliigous right whose purpose is to make their moral positions the official posiitons the law of the land, and then there is the old "liberal" wing of the party, Spector from Pennsylvania is an example. This group goes back to the oriiginal formation of the party. It was antislavory and wanted the blacks freed in the South. But it also was big business. Many "liberal" Repulicans learned to really get serious about working condiitons at their plants. Some realized that happy workers made better workers and better profits. Some "liberal" Republicans really cared for the workers. They just thought that it was a company problem and not a government problem. Many "liberal" Republicans made many of the social reforms possible. The Civil Rights Act which is a "DEMOCRATIC" bill would not have passed without almost complete Republican approval. The Senators that opposed the bill were the 22 Democratic Senators from the south in 1964, Now 18 of those Senators are Republicans. So there is the southern wing of the Republican Party which is a hodge podge of religious right, old "confederate" Democrats, and others who are in the natioal wing of the party. Then there is a wing that want all the conveniences of governmetn free. They are the young who don't realize that nothing comes free. Someone pays for it. Then there are the very rich who wnat to shift all the tax burden away from them. Conveniently high social security contributions, some form of sales tax that hits the poor and government bonds owned by the rich and making a nice profit for the rich is how they would finance government.
Then there are the Democrats. In total disarray. The various wings are not in harmony with each other. Democrats include neo Marxists, blacks, other minorities, socialists, and what I would refer to as old line liberals. Liberals with a good association with the term that wants only the best for every American and peace throughout the world.
But this term neoliberalism seems to be referring to Republicans. It is a term I don't remember studying 30 years ago and I don't truly understand who all is in the group, their objective and if they are in both political parties.
From what Jon has writteen, he seems to have favored Kerry over Bush. And his disdain for Bush, the Republican Party, and the religious right is very obvious.
And anyone who has read what I have written shows that my disdain for Bush, the Republican Party and the religious right is about the same as Jon.
Jon does show some problems he has with basic Christiantity. I am a devout. I believe in the Jesus wing of the religion as opposed to the Pualine version. There is quite a difference.
First I want to know just what neoliberalism is and who is driving it.
Second, I want to know where Jon would lead our country politically if he had the ability to call the shots.
I know I am not the only person who doesn't fully understand neoliberalism. I am quite sure there are readers out there who are confused by the movements I write about as well.
If readers have questions about what I would do and what I mean by certain posts. I will be glad to try to answer. I already know the post is too long for those who aren't that interested in this subject. But there is so to understand and comprehend about what is really going on in our country in 2005.
- jonb,
I was referring to economic neoliberalism, not theological neoliberalism, Freddie. Neoliberalism is also called Thatcherism; it's not to be confused with Roosevelt, Keynes, et al. Basically, neoliberalism is the idea that capitalism brings freedom, as best indicated by Augusto Pinochet, no doubt. (I'm not kidding: Neoliberals tout Pinochet as an example of their success.) Socialist, liberal, and conservative thinkers have all criticized neoliberalism for various reasons. The fact that common-sense thinkers on both sides of the aisle criticize it of course means the government and the media will promote it. LOL
Similar threads
