Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate

  1. I hope we all know that the religious right can't even get close to winning a primary. The demographics are only getting worse. Knowing the dems are all bought (too) I would hate to see them have complete power. Somebody needs to wake up.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    In my opinion this is just an attempt to play the race card to further Juan Williams' own gun control beliefs.

  4. #23
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Reposting something I wrote a couple of months ago here.

    OK. I'm going to say this publicly. Mr. Williams, things aren't going to get better for the black community until the black community stop trying to portray slavery as a white on black thing only for which whites are eternally in your debt, and finally take ownership for their own critical role in slavery.

    Why is this necessary?

    Because it also explains why black on black crime is an issue that harms more African-Americans than white on black crime ever will.

    Slavery of Africans would not have been possible at ANY TIME IN HISTORY except for the direct involvement of other Africans. Egyptians, Romans, Europeans, Americans were only able to make use of African slave labor because Africans were the ones selling other Africans into slavery. Period. Black slavery was the first expression of black on black crime. As villages and tribes fought, the victors would march entire enemy villages hundreds of miles to the coast, where they could be sold to traders from across the world. So while it is true that nearly every major civilization made use of black slaves, it was blacks who contributed to their own demise by selling other blacks into slavery and creating that market.

    That isn't white revisionism, that is historical fact.

    To this day, blacks are complicit in their own demise; your own statistics prove this conclusively. Not because of white oppression, but because they are still playing out the enemy village scenario. Rival gangs killing each other, gangbangers killing innocent bystanders, black drug dealers, pimps, loansharks, you name it - blacks are still being enslaved by their own; and any African-American who has the guts to break that mold is instantly classified as an Uncle Tom, and Oreo, or some other derogatory term. So desperate are gangbangers to keep this cycle going, that they are obtaining "trafficked" firearms to make it happen. So yes, we CAN condemn gangbangers for seeking out trafficked firearms - and the African-American community should be condemning them the loudest.

    Mr. Williams, until you and African-American leaders finally own that community's ongoing role in slavery and begin addressing the attitudes within the black community that keep it going today, absolutely nothing is going to change.

    And no amount of gun control is going to make a difference.

    In fact, the black community should be screaming for more firearms to protect themselves from black aggression instead of just accepting the aggression as an unavoidable part of life.

    I live in a mostly African-American neighborhood, but while many of those around me have been robbed or experienced other crimes, I have been left alone. Why? Because the word is out that I will defend myself. A number of years ago, a young African-American boy (he was just 11 years old and had a lengthy police record already), after being caught by my wife doing something he should not have been doing, threatened to come after me and my family with his posse. With his momma's boyfriend standing right next to him, I told him I thought that would be a good idea - bring your posse. But, I told him, before you bring them to my house, you give them a message from me: Anyone who comes onto my property looking to do my family and me harm goes out in a body bag - I don't care how young they are. I will bust a cap and not lose any sleep about doing it. They never came after us. In fact, eight years later, kids going down the sidewalk past my house get to my property line, cross the street, and return to my side of the street after they have passed my property.

    All I did was let him know that I had the will to defend my family. I didn't threaten anyone, I don't stand outside with an exposed firearm, and I am known in my community for being willing to help anyone who needs it - regardless of their color.

    And for the record, my wife is African-American, my in-laws are African-American (they are more family to me than my own extended family has ever been), and my kids are part African-American. I, by the way, am as white as they come.

    As for gun control, I suggest Mr. Williams watch the following video about the racist origins of gun control: JPFO - "No Guns for Negroes"

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    1. The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism, and the efforts of its adherents to create for themselves a "safe working environment".
    2. The attitude toward Black people held by the gun control industry is that of game wardens toward antelope on a wildlife reserve. That's why they're SO vehemently opposed to Black people defending ourselves with firearms. It's perfectly alright with them if the "lion" take a certain number of "antelope". But when the "prey" grow fangs and claws and start disemboweling the "predators", they're horrified because that's "unnatural".
    3. Current advocacy of gun control goes hand in hand with contempt for other civil liberties, ESPECIALLY those related to the 4th and 5th Amendments. Who could POSSIBLY be surprised that Bloomberg supports BOTH repressive, unconstitutional gun controls AND repressive, unconstitutional "stop and frisk" actions by police?
    4. The absolute bedrocks of gun control ideology are:
      1. infantilization of Black people as mentally and morally inferior to Whites (especially upper class Whites), unable to control our "savage impulses".
      2. outright fear of Black people not in the control of, and dependent upon upper class Whites. Many White anti-gunners live in sheer TERROR of Malcolm X's "chickens" coming home to roost.

    From day one, gun control has been a corrupt, racist enterprise. NOTHING has changed in two hundred plus years. It's shameful that influential Black people can't admit as much.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    In my opinion this is just an attempt to play the race card to further Juan Williams' own gun control beliefs.
    No, what it really is is a psychological defense mechanism that allows him to ignore both the racist history of gun control and the reasons for the current dysfunctional nature of much of urban Black society.

    Juan Williams is a relatively thoughtful and intelligent individual (especially for a Chicago Democrat). That having been said, there are logical leaps he cannot make for reasons of ideology. This is one of them.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NE Mississippi
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    I was a republican until I got smart and moved into the middle. I only saw it after the military, when I retired from flying and started looking at corporate books to invest.
    I actually started writing a primer on the party but didn't have time and realized that you are a newby here. I have written probably 20,000 words on the topic here on this forum and am not going to bother explaining it all again. But I will regurgitate the fact that the Republican party has never been more than about 1/3 conservatives, both voters and politicians. Probably another third of the voters lean conservative, and most really have no more of a clue about current American politics than most of the people who vote Democrat. Most Republican politicians did not like Regan, didn't and don't like Newt, are terrified of the tea parties, and really don't care which party is in power, as long as they get to play. We could correct the problem in the voting booth, but that isn't ever going to happen because the large majority of Americans, regardless of what party they vote for, are "low information voters", and probably can't tell you the names of the VP, the Speaker of the House, or what the Senate Majority Leader does, but can tell you the names of the people on American Idol, Survivor, and the names of their favorite and least favorite NASCAR drivers.

    All of what you say is true for a small handful of companies. Yes they are all big companies, ones that people have heard of, and that is why CEOs can set themselves up with a nice benefits package. In each case the company agreed, which makes it neither criminal nor immoral, and none of your or my business. It is sad if the company is driven into the ground, and the employees lose their jobs, but it was their choice to work for a company that makes such poor management decisions.

    The vast majority of American companies don't do this, but no one cares, because a company making wise decisions does not make headlines, nor get the scorn of people like yourself who worry about stuff like that.
    "I don't think that a society that encourages over a million abortions a year....a society that kills out of convenience, i.e., Jack Kevorkian, can not have consequences." --Rush Limbaugh

  8. Quote Originally Posted by fstroupe View Post
    All of what you say is true for a small handful of companies. Yes they are all big companies, ones that people have heard of, and that is why CEOs can set themselves up with a nice benefits package. In each case the company agreed, which makes it neither criminal nor immoral, and none of your or my business. It is sad if the company is driven into the ground, and the employees lose their jobs, but it was their choice to work for a company that makes such poor management decisions.
    .
    I would say when someone is fired after a few years and gets 150 million...that is a little more than a "nice benefit package"

    After I retired from flying and was looking at company books (to invest in) just prior to the 99 crash of the NASDAQ it was very common for them to get into channel stuffing. It kept the stock up and let them sell there options. Very hard for the average guy to see these (fake) sales and profits are going to implode and that no cash is really coming in even though the sale and profits are booked.

    Is it criminal? Is high pay criminal? I think it is as do many

    The below is by Gerry Spence The best lawyer in the world

    The arrogant embezzlers of Wall Street

    Posted on April 5, 2009 | 49 Comments




    Many corporate executives openly and arrogantly steal from the public companies they work for. Since the company belongs to the stockholders, they steal from the stockholders. They betray the stockholders’ trust. Take a look at this chief executive compensation data, please.

    Paying themselves such wildly unearned bonuses constitutes simple embezzlement. Of course, the board of directors must approve these bonuses, most of which have increased during this spiraling downturn (let us call it what it is, this depression.) But the directors are part of this conspiracy.

    An engaging question: Is such conduct criminal?



    Let me make the argument with a simple analogy: John Manager runs a local grocery story for its owners, the many heirs of Henry Owner, deceased. All of the money earned from the business belongs to the estate, and none, of course, belongs to John or the trustees.

    A fair and reasonable wage for John, according to his skill and experience is $100. But John has a special relationship with the trustees. First, they were selected by John. Next, they have a tacit understanding: John gets $1000 for his work instead of $100. But the trustees John selected get benefits that include tickets to the Superbowl, recommendations to join John’s clubs, his political support when one of the trustees wants to get on the city council, trips with John to Hawaii during the deadly winter, and John buys groceries from the trustees who are his wholesalers. John is also on the board of the wholesalers who happen to overpay themselves. The heirs are so many and so scattered that they take what they get and are happy to get any benefit at all.

    John has, in fact, stolen $900 from the heirs since the reasonable value of his service is $100 while he has paid himself, with the trustees’ consent, $1000. Nifty little scheme. Remember, the monies have been paid by the trustees with the full knowledge of the above facts. The conspiracy is to aid John in stealing $900 from the estate. A dedicated prosecutor could make a criminal case stand up against both John and the trustees.

    But no one will prosecute because John and the trustees and the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s political bosses and all of their mutual friends are members of the same country club, all give to the local symphony and all go to the same church and pray together every Sunday and, of course, buy a gross of Girl Scout Cookies.

    If Billy Joe, half doped up and in need of another fix, comes stumbling into the store and, at gun point, robs it of $20 he will be immediately prosecuted and sent to the pen for twenty years. He is a danger to society, is he not?

    I rest my case.

    If a corporate executive will steal from the corporation it runs will it not also steal from the American public that constitutes its customers and clients? And can we really trust its products or services?

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    I would say when someone is fired after a few years and gets 150 million...that is a little more than a "nice benefit package"

    After I retired from flying and was looking at company books (to invest in) just prior to the 99 crash of the NASDAQ it was very common for them to get into channel stuffing. It kept the stock up and let them sell there options. Very hard for the average guy to see these (fake) sales and profits are going to implode and that no cash is really coming in even though the sale and profits are booked.

    Is it criminal? Is high pay criminal? I think it is as do many

    The below is by Gerry Spence The best lawyer in the world

    The arrogant embezzlers of Wall Street

    Posted on April 5, 2009 | 49 Comments




    Many corporate executives openly and arrogantly steal from the public companies they work for. Since the company belongs to the stockholders, they steal from the stockholders. They betray the stockholders’ trust. Take a look at this chief executive compensation data, please.

    Paying themselves such wildly unearned bonuses constitutes simple embezzlement. Of course, the board of directors must approve these bonuses, most of which have increased during this spiraling downturn (let us call it what it is, this depression.) But the directors are part of this conspiracy.

    An engaging question: Is such conduct criminal?



    Let me make the argument with a simple analogy: John Manager runs a local grocery story for its owners, the many heirs of Henry Owner, deceased. All of the money earned from the business belongs to the estate, and none, of course, belongs to John or the trustees.

    A fair and reasonable wage for John, according to his skill and experience is $100. But John has a special relationship with the trustees. First, they were selected by John. Next, they have a tacit understanding: John gets $1000 for his work instead of $100. But the trustees John selected get benefits that include tickets to the Superbowl, recommendations to join John’s clubs, his political support when one of the trustees wants to get on the city council, trips with John to Hawaii during the deadly winter, and John buys groceries from the trustees who are his wholesalers. John is also on the board of the wholesalers who happen to overpay themselves. The heirs are so many and so scattered that they take what they get and are happy to get any benefit at all.

    John has, in fact, stolen $900 from the heirs since the reasonable value of his service is $100 while he has paid himself, with the trustees’ consent, $1000. Nifty little scheme. Remember, the monies have been paid by the trustees with the full knowledge of the above facts. The conspiracy is to aid John in stealing $900 from the estate. A dedicated prosecutor could make a criminal case stand up against both John and the trustees.

    But no one will prosecute because John and the trustees and the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s political bosses and all of their mutual friends are members of the same country club, all give to the local symphony and all go to the same church and pray together every Sunday and, of course, buy a gross of Girl Scout Cookies.

    If Billy Joe, half doped up and in need of another fix, comes stumbling into the store and, at gun point, robs it of $20 he will be immediately prosecuted and sent to the pen for twenty years. He is a danger to society, is he not?

    I rest my case.

    If a corporate executive will steal from the corporation it runs will it not also steal from the American public that constitutes its customers and clients? And can we really trust its products or services?
    Nice deflection. Fstroupe commented on the validity of using a minuscule number of specifically-named corporate entities you brought up to paint the whole corporate world as corrupt and otherwise nefarious, and your answer is to paint the whole corporate world as corrupt and nefarious based only on a sophomoric analogy by the "best lawyer in the world" who doesn't name a single real corporate entity! Brilliant!

    Where does the government come into all this corruption? You say above that it's, "Very hard for the average guy to see these (fake) sales and profits are going to implode and that no cash is really coming in even though the sale and profits are booked." I'm about as "average" as they come, but I can see that the Federal Reserve printing money to "quantitative" infinity is just as likely to implode the whole system as your example of one (or even a relative handful) of companies imploding under an upside down compensation structure. Yet you identify with the left, "more" of a liberal/democrat I think is how you put it earlier.

    I identify with the Constitution, period. The labels each "side" tags themselves with are irrelevant to me if their actions don't comport with their promises, and their promises don't comport with the Constitution. You are so angry with the corporate world, yet seem to absolve the government of any complicity in its "crimes." The government is the King of the Corporate World, but you adhere to the ideology that worships more, bigger, and less liberty-protecting government.

    In short, you're not making any sense. You're just ranting on the whipping boy you've chosen over the real criminal that enables, and even created him; government. The corporate world is nothing but the bastard child of a government operating under a fully-usurped Constitution, a support mechanism that government created for its own nefarious purposes.

    Any average Joe should be able to see it. Even a retired pilot who fancies himself a neo-leftist economic guru.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Nice deflection. Fstroupe commented on the validity of using a minuscule number of specifically-named corporate entities you brought up to paint the whole corporate world as corrupt and otherwise nefarious, and your answer is to paint the whole corporate world as corrupt and nefarious based only on a sophomoric analogy by the "best lawyer in the world" who doesn't name a single real corporate entity! Brilliant!

    Where does the government come into all this corruption? You say above that it's, "Very hard for the average guy to see these (fake) sales and profits are going to implode and that no cash is really coming in even though the sale and profits are booked." I'm about as "average" as they come, but I can see that the Federal Reserve printing money to "quantitative" infinity is just as likely to implode the whole system as your example of one (or even a relative handful) of companies imploding under an upside down compensation structure. Yet you identify with the left, "more" of a liberal/democrat I think is how you put it earlier.

    I identify with the Constitution, period. The labels each "side" tags themselves with are irrelevant to me if their actions don't comport with their promises, and their promises don't comport with the Constitution. You are so angry with the corporate world, yet seem to absolve the government of any complicity in its "crimes." The government is the King of the Corporate World, but you adhere to the ideology that worships more, bigger, and less liberty-protecting government.

    In short, you're not making any sense. You're just ranting on the whipping boy you've chosen over the real criminal that enables, and even created him; government. The corporate world is nothing but the bastard child of a government operating under a fully-usurped Constitution, a support mechanism that government created for its own nefarious purposes.

    Any average Joe should be able to see it. Even a retired pilot who fancies himself a neo-leftist economic guru.

    Blues
    Lots of words and you said nothing.
    I'll take Gerry Spence who many would say is the best lawyer in the world over BluesStringer any day.
    I get the case he makes and I see it thousands of times.
    You defend these and I'll double the list

    Stanley O'Neal, Merrill Lynch:
    $160 million, including more than $129 million in stock and options.
    O'Neal takes the fall for failing to adequately control the firm's
    credit and market risks, which resulted in a stunning $8 billion-plus
    write down in the third quarter.

    Philip Purcell, Morgan Stanley:
    $43.9 million plus $250,000 a year for life after being forced out. He
    angered a group of shareholders who had already called for a break up
    of the firm by reorganizing management and promoting some executives
    who were seen as loyal to him. The dissident shareholders won out.

    Richard Grasso, New York Stock Exchange:
    Took $140 million in deferred compensation and the disclosure of that
    payment sparked a furor that led to his departure. The pay also
    provoked an investigation and lawsuits, which are still being worked
    out. Grasso has vowed to fight.

    Douglas Ivester, Coca-Cola:
    Took $120 million when he stepped down in 2000 in his mid-50s. The
    departure was deemed a "retirement," but Ivester had presided over a
    period of stagnant growth, declining earnings and bad publicity.

    Robert Nardelli, Home Depot:
    $210 million. He fixed up the home products retailer using techniques
    he learned as an executive at General Electric, but by 2006, he was
    starting to seriously irritate shareholders. The final straw was when
    he told the board to skip the annual shareholder meeting and prevented
    shareholders from speaking for more than a few minutes. He was ousted
    in January 2007.

    Bruce Karatz, KB Homes:
    Gets up to $175 million. The former chief executive of the home
    building company resigned in November 2006 after an internal
    investigation into whether he and other executives backdated stock
    option grants.

    Stephen Hilbert, Conseco:
    Took an estimated $72 million. Hilbert bought GreenTree Financial in
    1998, just as the subprime lending business was about to go topsy
    turvy. The purchase left Conseco, an insurance company, with big write
    downs and ultimately contributed to its 2001 bankruptcy. The company
    has since reemerged from reorganization.

    Michael Ovitz, Disney:
    $140 million after less than two years on the job. A former big-time
    Hollywood agent, Ovitz was recruited to Disney to work under Chairman
    Michael Eisner, but the two couldn't play nice. The pay was disputed
    in a Delaware court, which decided in 2005 that the board didn't
    violate its fiduciary duty in awarding that much severance.

    Hank McKinnell, Pfizer:
    $198 million, including $78 million in deferred compensation he built
    up in 35 years at the pharmaceutical company. Pfizer shares sank 40%
    on his watch, which ended last year. The company had to cut billions
    in costs and fire thousands of employees, and said it wouldn't see
    revenue growth until 2009.

    Jill Barad Mattel
    $50 million severance package Mattel was losing $1.5 million a day
    Mattel's stock price which reached
    a high of $45 in March 1998) traded at $11 in February 2000.
    Under pressure, on February 3, Mattel's CEO Jill Barad resigned
    but received a $50 million severance package


    Frank Newman, Bankers Trust:
    $55 million. A former deputy Treasury secretary, Newman was brought to
    Bankers Trust to restore confidence after the 1994 derivatives
    scandal. He made aggressive moves into technology banking and lending
    (buying boutique Alex. Brown & Sons in 1997). But that push plus a big
    position in Russian government bonds, put the bank on the brink.
    Newman left in 1999 after selling the company to Deutsche Bank.

    Carli Fiorina Hewlett-Packard
    $20 million in severance board of directors discussed with Fiorina
    a list of issues that the board brought back in Tom Perkins
    and forced Fiorina to resign as chairman and chief executive officer of the company.
    The company's stock jumped on news of Fiorina's departure.
    Under the company's agreement she was paid slightly more than $20 million in severance

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    Lots of words and you said nothing.
    Not true. I said that you answered fstroupe's post with an even less valid painting of the corporate world than the one he commented on, and you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    I'll take Gerry Spence who many would say is the best lawyer in the world over BluesStringer any day.
    "Best" is rather a subjective term. Before Bush v. Gore and his inexplicable foray into gay "rights" advocacy in CA, I'd have said Ted Olson held that title. Olson is hardly as visible on TV as Gerry Spence has been throughout his career though, so maybe that's why he came to my mind instead of Spence. I tend to study case law more so than who is the "best" self-promoter. I'm also pretty partial to Alan Gura, but whether or not either one of them is your particular cup o' tea, the example you gave of Spence's "genius" (or whatever it is you think makes him "the best"), does nothing to support your assertion about his legal prowess. I am not a lawyer and wasn't trying to displace Spence as your "best" legal mind in the world, I just found nothing moving or relevant to fstroupe's post that you were ostensibly replying to, or to the topic of the thread (something about Juan Williams as I recall).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    I get the case he makes and I see it thousands of times.
    Then link to a couple or three of such stories where a freakin' grocery-store manager who is only worth $100 bucks (a week? an hour? a year?) is getting $1000 bucks and can still hand out payola such as Superbowl tickets, buy memberships at clubs that are so exclusive that his hand-picked board of directors keep the payola flowin' just to get a recommendation from him etc. The analogy Spence offered was so ridiculous that only a neo-leftist could "get the case he makes!" And it was a complete, 100% hypothetical. It bore no resemblance to anything real.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    You defend these and I'll double the list
    I didn't defend them the first, second, third, or fourth freakin' time you SPAMMED the board with the same list. So, in fact, you've already quadrupled your list.

    Been here three or four days and already you're being grossly redundant. Even three times within the same thread! And posting the same verbose crap gives you no place from which to criticize the length of my one post in reply to you.

    I don't defend corruption under any circumstances. You, however, have failed to show corruption. All you've shown is that you've got a hardon for people who make more money than you think they "should." I'm not saying that any, or all, of the corporate-types in your list aren't corrupt, I'm just saying that making a lot of money is not, in and of itself, evidence of it. If you've got a point to make, make it, but just making ad hominem attacks against a list of rich folk whom you quite obviously hold contempt for simply by virtue of their positions and their income does nothing to help you make a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    Blah blah....Same stuff, different.....hour.
    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast