Oh please, they had these back in 1984...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMboVN12r0

Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today.

All people have equal chance at freedom for the last 50 years.


Most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. If I was in that position I suppose I would also take the handout.



Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community


Out of the 10 poorest cities
Five cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years.
Two other cities, Miami, El Paso, have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

Poverty
Rank City Democrat
Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community.

If you want to help end racism and help black communities turn around then stop voting democrat.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
... Ben Franklin

I'm a nuisance because you don't agree with me.

You should read 1984, see if it sounds like utopia to you.

If I am wrong about Northern Ireland, then I'm wrong. I'm not an expert on N. Ireland. It's tough to be an expert on everything, like others here.

But if a Brit drone operator saw a guy planting an IED, I'd have no problem with him sending down a little Obama love.

I agree that killing someone based on their height is dead wrong, but I doubt that was the only consideration.

Bottom line is, do you trust the gov't? I don't, not anymore, especially with this current crop of 'the end justifies the means' crowd.

Per Wikipedia: "Poltergeist initially received an R rating[15] from the MPAA. As the PG-13 rating did not come into effect until 1984, which would have been an appropriate rating at the time, Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper disagreed with the 'R' rating and managed to have the film changed to a 'PG' rating on appeal."

I try to keep it civil but I've been baited more than anyone else here, voodoo calling me a homo etc or others just plain saying I'm stupid etc.

My argument is the same as jerykk above, exactly my point.

But you people only spout liberal talking points.

"This isn't fair, that isn't fair!" You're like a bunch of 6 yr olds.

I know what a fucking strawman is and I know what a fucking anecdote is, I get tired of being accused. I know what a racist is, all you people have to do is accuse someone and that's the end.

Whenever you show some maturity I will respond in kind. To a progressive, the end justifies the means, so if you can use any tactic to shut me down, you do it, because the end result is that everyone will think just like you...well, I've read 1984 and I don't want any part of it.

I liked the Hunger Games (first movie) enough that I decided to read the books. OK, but the third one went off the rails a bit and overall I felt like it would be better to try to get the YA audience to read Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, or 1984, all of which still hold up pretty well.

I haven't watched Divergent yet. Would you (or your wife) recommend watching the movie first and then reading (if I like the movie), or going straight to the books?

I finally started re-reading A Song of Ice and Fire, so this would probably have to wait a good while until I finish that, but I don't mind holding off if that would be the thing to do.

As much as like David Lynch, his 1984 Dune was a hot mess.

Democrats have all of these great intentions but every time they try to get it done, they fuck it up beyond all repair. Then Republicans think they can do it, and they fuck it up.

Which is why less gov't is more freedom.

Man, I never thought I'd pine for Bill Clinton. Of course, I never thought I'd vote for that worthless sumbitch John McCain, either.

But it's strange to watch the left just slobber over a guy who's trying to create this 'utopia'.

It's really 1984 all over again.

No, they are certainly not. They are stating they won't tolerate CERTAIN expressions of CERTAIN beliefs (in their private business) that have been determined to be unacceptable by those in the business group.
It would be out of 1984 if the FED had forced him out, the government had nothing to do with this though, so I'll just say I think you're wrong.
You make ridiculous assumptions based on skin color that one's with similar color must have a similar experience...I think that way of thinking has been proven to be incorrect and overly simplistic, and is a tool of racists, to homogenize people by 'race'. It simply isn't the way it works, classifying people by economic status is a much better way of classifying people with similar experience in my view.

They are not eradicating racism. They are only eradicating any personal expression of belief. Banning Donald Sterling from the NBA is right out of 1984.
Racism can only be eradicated by a realization that all people are created of God.
Personally, I will still gravitate toward white people, just as black people gravitate toward black people. It is due to shared experience.
When the movie Planet of the Apes was being filmed and the actors went off to eat lunch, the gorillas sat with the gorillas, the chimps sat with the chimps, and the orangutans sat with their fellows. It wasn't racism, it was shared experience.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/trivia
Just as I would rather sit with a black cop than a white firefighter because the cop and I share a common experience.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

Would be difficult to swing that because F1 didn't have the type of organized pit stops we see today until much much later. Refueling during a race was first done in a properly calculated way in 1982 by Brabham, before that they only did it in emergency situations (barring Fangio's German Grand Prix win in 1957, where he just decided to do it mid race, but would probably have won even without it). It was again outlawed by 1984, and came back in 1994, then went away in 2010 again, so the only times in history that proper pit stops with fueling etc. have been in common use in F1 are between 1982-1984 and 1994-2009. Likewise stopping for new tyres pretty much came in with the fuel stops in 1982, because naturally they realized they could run softer tyre compounds if they only had to last half a race.

In the 50s, 60s and 70s you'd basically only see the F1 drivers pitting in if there were problems with the car, for the most part they really really wanted to avoid coming into the pits if at all possible. Exception being races like the Indy 500 which was simply too long to complete in one go.

Wow! I could never get down a slope like that without an ambulance or air lift. I had to look up the impressive fellow with the skills to make it down in one piece and film.

"Graham Bell and his brother Martin competed for Britain throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Graham took a Silver Medal at the World Junior Ski Championships in 1984 and represented Great Britain at five Winter Olympics in Sarajevo 1984, Calgary 1988, Albertville 1992, Lillehammer 1994 and Nagano 1998." /sauce

Great tune, terrible fanmade video.

Ween
1984-2012
RIP

Loved these guys. I wore out my Red Sails in the Sunset tape mowing yards one summer...1984 I guess.