Yeah Katrina is something no one should forget and we're not talking about what FEMA didn't do for the people there-It's what they did with the National Guard TO the people of Louisiana. Forced entry and confiscation of firearms. Illegal and criminal.

Surprised they didn't call up some reserve rednecks for another grip-n-grab for guns during the east coast's little wet-weather spell-Axe them folks down in Louisiana who got their shit stolen while thousands of others sat in a 5 by 5 spot in their own shit inside the Super dome waiting for some fresh water n such....

Bet the governor didn't get wet or have his firearms illegally confiscated either, nice rant, chubby!

I don't get it. Ron Paul came in last place with only 6% of Louisiana Republicans supporting him. How can someone who was beaten so badly lay claim to a delegate?

Short answer is they're regions that are officially part of the US, but not a state (Puerto Rico is the usual example).

Long answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

Also, the woman who said "Philippines" would've been right if the question had been asked 80 years ago. The girl who said "Louisiana" would've been right if the question had been asked 200 years ago.
>> ^Yogi:

I got everything but US Territory...isn't that just a state or something? What do they mean by Territory?

*blocked for just random people it seems. (It won't load in California, but it loads in Louisiana.)

Someone try to replace the embed with something that really works!

@quantumushroom, sounds to me like that's 5 different ways of saying slavery.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South

From the site you cited:

[T]he southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture.

So, the Southern economy was based on slavery, the Northern economy wasn't.


2. States versus federal rights

As I said before, the origin of this concept was the schism over slavery. The South wanted to be able to hold slaves, and the North wanted them free. The compromise was the concept of "state's rights".


3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents

Hey, that one's obviously about slavery.


4. Growth of the Abolition Movement

Uhh, that one too.


5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

From the site you cited:

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

And yes, Lincoln said otherwise. Amazingly enough, the South projected all their worst fears and prejudices on a well educated, liberal, African-friendly President from Illinois back in 1860 too.

"You know, we're just better than people that don't live in The City." -- That's the most common one from New Yorkers that I know.

Oh, oh. And "Minnesota/Ohio/Wisconsin/Iowa/Kentucky/Indiana/Louisiana/Tennessee/Kansas/Idaho/Missouri? Is that near Chicago?"

the implications here are enormous. really good news. i wish i could upvote a thousand times.
This is a wonderful step towards actual rational thinking in the USA when it comes to drugs (non-violent offenses and imprisonment).

at one point in my life i represented incarcerated juveniles in louisiana, the majority of which were imprisoned on petty drug offenses. Once they were in the system it was typically a downward spiral. incredibly sad and incredibly stupid. what a waste.

it's almost hard to believe that texas, who often led the "tough on crime" crap, is leading in the right direction.

"I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience."


I, as you may infer, am not white. I find it is futile to argue with many white people about overt discrimination, because they have never encountered it. Also to the credit of many households and parents, many white kids don't grow up around overt racists. As a result, they only see discrimination as an intellectual problem.

I have only seen two instances where previously disagreeing white people start to appreciate my point of view:

1) Experience direct discrimination in a non-white majority country: I live in China, and have visited Japan, Asian Pacific countries and African countries for business and pleasure. I often travel with friends and colleagues, many of whom are white westerners. I can tell you that often when white people are denied doing something very ordinary, like visiting a restaurant, solely because they are white (or rather non-Chinese, non-Japanese, etc), a usual response is them completely losing their minds. At that moment, when they are directly denied entry into a private establishment for something incidental as their race, they feel the humiliation and the anger associated with the experience. After such a personal experience, a productive conversation can happen about discrimination in the States. There still may not be agreement, but at least the discussion will have more depth than "Save the Country!!!".

2) Experience an openly American racist culture firsthand. A white buddy of mine would have sworn on a stack of bibles that the attitudes that are behind discrimination are past us all---until she visited her cousins in Louisiana. She later recounted to me that she was in shock at the free use of the word "nigger", and the half-joking fantasies about shooting and killing 'coons', among other things. I think she gets it now; at least she understands why I would not want to let these people out of the proverbial asylum by repealing the 64 Act, or its derivatives.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^gorillaman:
LOL

?


gorillaman believes all cops should be executed for complicity in marijuana prohibition.

http://drugs.videosift.com/talk/Decriminalizing-marijuana-what-say-you?loadcomm=1#comment-476756
http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Shooter-is-Attacked-Before-Court-Appearance?loadcomm=1#comment-489848
http://videosift.com/video/Two-guys-try-to-kill-a-cop?loadcomm=1#comment-213884
http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Deal-with-the-Police?loadcomm=1#comment-1020594
http://videosift.com/video/Naked-man-tasered-multiple-times-at-Coachella-festival?loadcomm=1#comment-741977
http://videosift.com/video/Louisiana-Police-Choke-Man-to-Death-for-Drugs-in-His-Mouth?loadcomm=1#comment-810007
http://videosift.com/video/Police-Officer-Shoots-Motorcyclist-In-The-Back?loadcomm=1#comment-998287
http://videosift.com/video/Former-Drug-Czar-Owned-Legalization-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-754673
http://videosift.com/video/The-Largest-Street-Gang-in-America?loadcomm=1#comment-837609
http://videosift.com/video/Marijuana-It-s-Time-for-a-Conversation?loadcomm=1#comment-620405

Also, it seems "niggers", "kikes" and "spics" are unacceptable to him, as well.

>> ^ant:

Who did the original song? I only know the kids/children version.


Copyright by former Louisiana State Governor Jimmie Davis and Charles Mitchell in 1940. There seems to be some dispute on who exactly wrote this classic.

From the Wiki:

Davis and Charles Mitchell are the credited songwriters of "You Are My Sunshine". Davis bought the song and rights from Paul Rice and put his own name on it, a practice not uncommon in the pre-World War II music business.[2] Some early versions of the song, however, do credit the Rice Brothers. According to some accounts, clarinetist Pud Brown was also involved with the Rice Brothers for the song's origin or first arrangement.

I can see how cops would get mad at the rule of law when they are the only ones following it (As they should.) I could see how a rapist getting off (Literally sometimes) because a reasonable cause was questioned could frustrate someone. I can see how citizens, and their yelling and screaming, "My kids innocent!" all the time would fluster. I can see how, "You need to bring justice and find someone guilty!" would also fluster.

And I can see how the innocent juvie who get's caught at the wrong place/wrong time could get flustered.

I think citizens and their unregulated sense that someone must die, someone must be brought to justice or the cops aren't doing their jobs is more to blame than anything else...

But at least you can admit your opinion is skewed (I doubt just a bit though.) Stockholm syndrome is so true...

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^ToastyBuffoon:
>> ^criticalthud:
I fear the police much more than I count on them to do the right thing.

Paranoid much?
While there is no denying that some of our people in uniform abuse the power they are given, sometimes with extreme and unfortunately deadly results, these idiots are only a small portion of the law enforcement community. My personal experiences with police officers over my 44 years of life have been one of mutual respect. I find that if you engage an officer with a level of respect, most times you will get that in kind.
In the case of Emily, there is no doubt she was doing something well within her rights as a citizen and that the officer had no reason to feel threatened by her actions. Her arrest was a definite abuse of power, and the ticketing of the supporters was most certainly a form of intimidation/retaliation, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night worried about my next encounter with the police. I have confidence that my local law enforcement will do what is right and appropriate in most situations.

totally! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> LOL i'm an ex lawyer. i used to represent incarcerated juvi's down in louisiana, so my perception is a bit skewed. yeah of course some good cops out there. i've known a few too. but seen some bad shit. and many cops i've been around have voiced the opinion that the rule of law (what there is of it) is essentially an impediment to them doing their "jobs". and often times cops have no issues whatsoever with framing someone they know of to be "bad" but don't have the evidence to nail. but yeah, there will forever be shades of grey in this area. I think if we focused on the fact that the laws are most often written by those who wish to preserve the status quo (the rich) and returned the rule of law to the people, so many of these issues would be mitigated. thanks for the call out <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">

>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

>> ^criticalthud:
I fear the police much more than I count on them to do the right thing.

Paranoid much?
While there is no denying that some of our people in uniform abuse the power they are given, sometimes with extreme and unfortunately deadly results, these idiots are only a small portion of the law enforcement community. My personal experiences with police officers over my 44 years of life have been one of mutual respect. I find that if you engage an officer with a level of respect, most times you will get that in kind.
In the case of Emily, there is no doubt she was doing something well within her rights as a citizen and that the officer had no reason to feel threatened by her actions. Her arrest was a definite abuse of power, and the ticketing of the supporters was most certainly a form of intimidation/retaliation, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night worried about my next encounter with the police. I have confidence that my local law enforcement will do what is right and appropriate in most situations.


totally! LOL i'm an ex lawyer. i used to represent incarcerated juvi's down in louisiana, so my perception is a bit skewed. yeah of course some good cops out there. i've known a few too. but seen some bad shit. and many cops i've been around have voiced the opinion that the rule of law (what there is of it) is essentially an impediment to them doing their "jobs". and often times cops have no issues whatsoever with framing someone they know of to be "bad" but don't have the evidence to nail. but yeah, there will forever be shades of grey in this area. I think if we focused on the fact that the laws are most often written by those who wish to preserve the status quo (the rich) and returned the rule of law to the people, so many of these issues would be mitigated. thanks for the call out

Well, it -is- Louisiana...it's not even really hypocrisy, just stupidity. I don't think most of them are smart enough to even see the issue.

hahaha nice 2001 S-Type. And WTF is a Louisiana purchase card? I don't understand if they're taking themselves seriously or not in this. If I thought they were taking themselves seriously, I fear any thought I'd have would be racist. If I thought they were doing a parody, they'd be racist. I'm so confused. Hold me...