I like that point. No matter how bad you may think things are now, no one can deny that we've made a lot for progress in the last 60 years.

Orpheus said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Crono</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>You weren't alive during WWII.

Thankfully.

My point was, each generation has its issues. In WW2 it was mainly Japanese and Germans. I may not have been alive but, I do have kinfolk that were. Actually most of them are dead now, but they were alive when I was your age and I talked to them.

If there is a bright side, be glad you are born now. Japanese Americans during WW2 were placed in concentration camps. You are still free... More less.

My sympathies though. I do understand.

I know I told you once, but I had a great Grandma who was on the trail of tears. Tis why I sometimes bring up native American topics. They really took a beating on that trail. It wasn't a good generation for the Cherokee. </div></div>

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

I honestly hope that, at least as a nation, we can get over our prejudices - as you say, it seems we only cycle through them. African, Irish, Italian, Chinese, German, Japanese - today, Arab, and on this coast, Mexican.

Cassius said:
and on this coast, Mexican.

The Mexican issue is pretty much nationwide now that the borders are open in both directions for trade.

American high dollar jobs are going South, literally. Mexicans are also more apt to soak up the low end jobs that white people only complain about. I get so tired of people crying about low paying jobs, then complain about people who work them.

My only comment however is, that if they would pay the Mexicans as much as White's would they still bitch that the Mexicans are taking something?

I know that I'll never live long enough but, I'd so much like to see us all viewed as Earth People, not races.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I always want races, and social classes. It is differences that make everything work... Imagine if a magnet only had one polarity, or if ionic charges were nonexistent. Nothing would work. Ever.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
I always want races, and social classes. It is differences that make everything work... Imagine if a magnet only had one polarity, or if ionic charges were nonexistent. Nothing would work. Ever.

I'm reminded of the class system in Brave New World...

Addicted to Morphine said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I always want races, and social classes. It is differences that make everything work... Imagine if a magnet only had one polarity, or if ionic charges were nonexistent. Nothing would work. Ever.

I'm reminded of the class system in Brave New World...</div></div>

Sounds more like "Fahrenheit 451" to me.

In fact, Nickels comment stinks of segregation. I have met many people I consider equals. I have met many I respect. I have yet to meet my better.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

It's been far too long since I last read Fahrenheit 451, and apart from the house-fire and the safe, I can't remember much. It's time I reread it. Also, nickel's comment sounds very much like Brave New World to me, and here's a little bit of evidence :smile:

Brave New World book notes from here: http://www.bookrags.com/notes/bnw/TOP2.html

bookrags said:
Topic Tracking: Inferiority

Chapter 1

Inferiority 1: The embryos are divided into different castes right from the start, even before they are decanted as human beings. There is a predetermined split between superior and inferior prior to "birth."

Chapter 2

Inferiority 2: The government uses sleep-teaching to reinforce a sense of superiority on the part of the Alphas and a sense of inferiority on the part of the Epsilons.

Etc. Etc.

Its been 3 decades at least since I read 451. All I remember about it was burning books to keep people stupid and promoting a semblance of segregation. (I think)

I am silly about racism. I cannot stand any form of it and separating people into classes just because their skin color is considered lowly is very upsetting.

My wife told me this: The other night she took her mom to the Emergency room at the hospital 2 days ago. While she was there she noticed a Mexican mother with 3 children. They were apparently there before she arrived. The children were sick and throwing up in succession. My wife told me they had to call house keeping several times to clean up the puke. They finally brought this poor mom a bucket for the kids to throw up in.

This poor mom sat there and no one would see them. After my wifes mom came out from seeing the Doctor, she noticed the mother was still waiting. My wife took it upon herself to finally complain. It took a white woman complaining before the poor mom and 3 kids were seen.

Crap like this shouldn't happen.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

It is nothing LIKE brave new world. Which is a great book, by the way. I think the current world is turning into "Brave New World." I feel like the savage! The last man on earth with a realistic outlook that is not based on comforts and immediate gratification!

Look at how everyone has turned to science for all thier needs and wants. The ethos, pathos and logos have been separated in that world without one, there is no others. They are beginning to separate in this world too.

The people in both worlds are just Children in grownups bodies, look at how in the book they cater to thier every wish by use of drugs or casual sex without emotional meaning. Look at how this world is just the same. I would not have the world become like "Brave New World," I would have it stop being as such. But anything I try to do with regards to changing it only leads to people calling me "medieval" and "backwards" and "trying to bring back the 'progress' of humans." I am the savage, the man whom it is worst to be.

Orph, being different is NOT racism. Having colors is not having separations. A color in itself is not lowly, it is the thinking of the people involved.There will always be an optical separation between brown and white, but there does not have to be a class assigned to both exclusively.

Orpheus and Morphine, I'm ashamed of your thinking process in this. How does a black millionaire like "Snoop Dogg" compared to a s**t-poor white man like people living around me fit into both of your paradigms of color=class? But to go along with your scenario...

Why are mexicans poor? Because they are immigrants from a poorer nation. But it's the nation's fault, not the people.

Why is mexico so crappy? Because the government is poorly run.

Who has been running the mexican government for a few hundred years? Mexicans.

Any way you look at it, Mexicans are poor because of Mexicans, not because they were assigned a class of "Epsilon" when they illegally crossed the border, and are not being brainwashed by evil white men in tall buildings.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Mexicans are poor because of Mexicans</DIV></DIV>
Wow, get the f**k off the boards. I've never said that to anyone, and I hope I never have to say that to anyone again.

Members of a disenfranchised group in society cannot be held accountable for the state of their group. Complicated history, rather than a sequence of moral choices for which Mexicans as a group somehow hold collective responsibility, has placed their country at a lower standard of living than ours. And in any case, vindicating them for being generally poor - and yes, implying that they are uniquely responsible for how they're doing is vindication, derision, insult - is at best counterproductive and at worst outright cruel. You may just be part of what's wrong with this country.

Hey, don't mind me. It's my time in China talking, whooo communism.

I... uhh.. I really don't know where to go with this.

For the sake of argument, I would ask that Nickel rephrase his reply because it was very offensive for this old man to read.

I suspect you didn't intend it thus because of your religious fervor but, it sure sounded/read horrible.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Cassius said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Mexicans are poor because of Mexicans

Wow, get the f**k off the boards. I've never said that to anyone, and I hope I never have to say that to anyone again.

Members of a disenfranchised group in society cannot be held accountable for the state of their group. Complicated history, rather than a sequence of moral choices for which Mexicans as a group somehow hold collective responsibility, has placed their country at a lower standard of living than ours. And in any case, vindicating them for being generally poor - and yes, implying that they are uniquely responsible for how they're doing is vindication, derision, insult - is at best counterproductive and at worst outright cruel. You may just be part of what's wrong with this country.</div></div>

This is just what I was talking about. I hold a group of people responsible for thier actions, and I'm the problem of society.

In another post, my point of view is written off as a mindless "religious furor."

Orpheus. I don't mean any insults.

Cassius, examine the facts:

• Mexicans are poor.
• Mexico is governed by mexicans.

So how is my statement NOT true? I'm not saying they are poor simply because of thier nationality/race/skin-color. I am simply saying that they are not poor because of some almighty class system based on skin-color descrimination. That sounds like such a Conspiracy Theory.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

• Mexicans are poor.
• Mexico is governed by mexicans.

</DIV></DIV>
[list]
[/list]

On the most basic level, it is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the government of any nation decides that nation's economics. I hardly need mention that if such were the case, no country would be unsuccessful.

If it's your take that Mexico is poor because of the mistakes of Mexicans, you assume the burden of showing me the historical sequence through which the Mexican people condemned themselves to widespread poverty.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Oh, I follow. So, Americans are Republicans because Republicans govern us.</DIV></DIV>You can spare us your self-righteousness. You are not the only person to distaste the excesses and indulgences of Western society. You are not the only person I've afforded the label of being part of what's wrong with America - I give it to anyone who actively speaks against a group of people based on bulls**t generalizations. You are not a Savage, you are not a saint, you are not enlightened. Your analysis of a state and a people encompasses two practically irrelevant points - and that kind of simple-minded judgement on non-WASP Americans is, yes, what's wrong this country. You've warranted a second phrase from me that I have never extended to anyone: don't think too highly of yourself.

Bottom line: you either show me conclusively that the governmental decisions that the Mexican people have made over their history are the exclusive cause of their current financial state as a nation and as a people, or crawl back under your rock with your tail between your legs and come out when you've developed some sense.

Note that you are not being persecuted. Harbor no misconceptions that I care to agitate your egotism. I, an individual, am challenging you, an individual, to back up what you just spouted. Go.

---

[Im_invisible] "I would suck a man off, but only for sustenance."

I don't know anything about Mexican governmental operations so I will not discuss it myself. I will leave that burden to you two.

I will however point out that it is my opinion that America has poor Americans. I do not really believe that on a wide scale that we have poor Americans because the country is run by Americans who want them to be that way. (Paraphrasing Mexicans because of Mexicans)

Mexico is peopled by a combination of natives and Spaniards. Spain was once a very powerful and prosperous country. Perhaps its Spain's fault... I dunno that either.

In the end though I want to state quite clearly that I do not support illegal immigration, HOWEVER, I have absolutely no issues with Mexican people who are here legitimately and working. They seem to soak up the jobs that no born American wants to do. (as a whole, there are some poor Americans who are proud enough to work them too)

American has a rather large percentage of its adult population workforce on government assistance programs. Food stamps and welfare are the norm in many locations. Its true that there are some Mexican people on these too, but by and large they are the Mexicans born here, not the ones born in Mexico and still have a sense of pride.

Anyway, thats my take.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Aside from a seemingly skewed distribution of wealth, which relates to
the way the country has been controlled by external forces (ie
Spain/USA) for it's "modern" history, Mexico seems to be a rather rich
country.

As much as I detest using Wikipedia for backing up an argument, the
Mexico article is well referenced and written. So here we go.

According to the World Bank, Mexico ranks 13th in the world in regard to GDP and has the third largest per capita income in Latin America just after Argentina and Chile, and it is firmly established as an upper middle-income country. Since the economic crisis of 1994?1995 the country has made an impressive economic recovery. According to the director for Colombia and Mexico of the World Bank,
the population below the poverty level has decreased from 24.2% to
17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas
from 2000-2004 [2].

Mexico has a mixed economy that recently entered the trillion dollar class. It contains a mixture of modern and outmoded industry and agriculture,
increasingly dominated by the private sector. The number of state-owned
enterprises in Mexico has fallen from more than 1,000 in 1982 to fewer
than 100 in 2005. Recent administrations have expanded competition in
seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution, and airports. Mexico is also the fourth largest oil producer in the world.

A strong export sector helped to cushion the economy's decline in
1995 and led the recovery in 1996?1999. Private consumption became the
leading driver of growth, accompanied by increased employment and
higher wages.

Mexico has entered a new era of macroeconomic stability. Following a 4.1% growth in 2004, real GDP grew 3% in 2005. According to the Bank of Mexico recent economic developments include a record-low inflation of 3.3% in 2005, low interest rates, a lower External debt to GDP ratio (8.9%) and a strong peso. Trade with the United States and Canada has tripled since NAFTA was implemented in 1994.

Mexico has opened its markets to free trade like few other countries
have done, lowering its trade barriers with more than 40 countries in
12 Free Trade Agreements, including Japan and the European Union.
However more than 85% of the trade is still done with the United
States. Government authorities expect that by putting more than 90% of
trade under free trade agreements with different countries Mexico will
lessen its dependence on the United States. The government is seeking
to sign an additional agreement with Mercosur.

Mexico still needs to overcome many structural problems as it
strives to modernize its economy and raise living standards. Ongoing
economic concerns include low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution (top 20% of income earners account for 55% of income), and few advancement opportunities for the largely Amerindian population in the impoverished southern states. If municipalities of Mexico were classified as countries in the HDI World Ranking, San Pedro Garza Garcia, and Benito Ju?rez, one of the districts in the Distrito Federal, would have a similar level of development to that of Italy, whereas Metlatonoc, Guerrero, would have an HDI similar to that of Malawi [3].

The country has continued to struggle with such issues as economic control and development, especially with the petroleum sector and the evolution of trade relations with the United States. Corruption at certain levels of the administration and crime continue to be chronic problems.

Mexicans are poor because of circumstance and social structures
applied by larger powers or a result of misguided or mismanaged
revolution. Either way the notion that "mexicans are poor" is quite
simply wrong.

he other thing I find completely ridiculous in the US "Mexican
Issue" is the crying by Texans and other southerners that the Mexicans
are taking the jobs, houses etc - half of this bloody territory was
Mexico in the first place! It's like the fools in Great Britain who
attack people from the Indian sub continent for various percieved ills
of society, questioning their right to "be here". This old chestnut
overlooks the fact that in most cases it is highly likely these people
were born as citizens of the British Empire, not to mention their
immeasurable assistance in propelling Britain to the state it is today
in terms of economic and social infrastructure.

Gwil said:
he other thing I find completely ridiculous in the US "Mexican Issue" is the crying by Texans and other southerners that the Mexicans are taking the jobs, houses etc - half of this bloody territory was Mexico in the first place!

The territory in question was not the Mexicans either. At least not originally. This small piece of your point is moot.

Land gained through wars or otherwise conquered peoples is irrelevant to the discussion.

I do however wonder why so many people argue about "taking jobs" If the Mexicans are taking something you want, by all means gain enough education or whatever experience it takes to get the job before they obtain it. :rolleyes:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Mexicans held that land before we did. Point stands.

I doubt the Native Americans would concur but.. The small point of ownership is still irrelevant.

It has no baring on why stupid Americans claim Mexicans are taking jobs.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Texas was originally owned by dinosaurs. I'm with Orph on this.

French Toast said:
Texas was originally owned by dinosaurs. I'm with Orph on this.

whispers my gratitude

Texas was under water at the time of the dinosaurs, hence the massive limestone formations.

and no, before anyone mentions it, I wasn't alive then so I cannot confirm its liquid state.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

boo hoo the Mexicans lost land they could barely claim to hold in the first place.

They got paid 15 million for their troubles...

...and a big thanks for falling like a house of cards and helping the US in its civil war preseason fight.

PS: Brave New World is a terrible, terrible book and should join The Great Gatsby on the trash heap of the literature world.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Yak_Fighter</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>PS: Brave New World is a terrible, terrible book and should join The Great Gatsby on the trash heap of the literature world.</DIV></DIV>I haven't read BNW, I just know the details of the plot and the ideas it advances. Novels and short stories are better driven by emotion and drama rather than by ideas - and rarely ever does a novel driven by political ideas engage. 1984 honestly bothers me as a story, because every character, scene, and description is invariably secondary to the ideas Orwell tries to put across through them - and the reader can't possibly care about what the author doesn't.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
[list]
[/list]

On the most basic level, it is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the government of any nation decides that nation's economics. I hardly need mention that if such were the case, no country would be unsuccessful.

</DIV></DIV>

I'm not saying that a group of governmental officials DECIDED that thier people would be poor. It just happened through mismanagement.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>If it's your take that Mexico is poor because of the mistakes of Mexicans, you assume the burden of showing me the historical sequence through which the Mexican people condemned themselves to widespread poverty.</DIV></DIV>

How did i assume this burden?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Oh, I follow. So, Americans are Republicans because Republicans govern us.</DIV></DIV>
You can spare us your self-righteousness. You are not the only person to distaste the excesses and indulgences of Western society. You are not the only person I've afforded the label of being part of what's wrong with America - I give it to anyone who actively speaks against a group of people based on bulls**t generalizations. You are not a Savage, you are not a saint, you are not enlightened. Your analysis of a state and a people encompasses two practically irrelevant points - and that kind of simple-minded judgement on non-WASP Americans is, yes, what's wrong this country. You've warranted a second phrase from me that I have never extended to anyone: don't think too highly of yourself.

</DIV></DIV>

"Self-righteousness?" "Simple-minded judgement?" That almost sounds insulting. I'm not self-righteous, I'm a person who tries to live by a moral code in a world of people trying to do away with and discredit my code and do whatever the hell they want. If you want to beleive that that is self-righteousness, then your right to be in error will be exercised. The fact that I am not a saint is a forgone conclusion given that nobody is perfect. I try to do as well as I can by the moral code I beleive in, and i resent the fact that others who do not live by this code see my decision to do so as self-righteousness. I am not a WASP-american anyway. Your example about republicans is wrong as well. Granted, it IS a broad generalization, it doesn't fit because to work, I would have had to say "Mexicans are poor because they are governed by poor people." Which I did not say. You almost had it.

By telling me that narrow-minded assumptions about non-WASPs by WASPs is "what's wrong with this country" you assume the burden of proving to me that narrow-minded assumptions are the sole blemish on an otherwise spotless record for the USA. By your own reasoning, do you not?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Bottom line: you either show me conclusively that the governmental decisions that the Mexican people have made over their history are the exclusive cause of their current financial state as a nation and as a people, or crawl back under your rock with your tail between your legs and come out when you've developed some sense.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

Going by something other than your (in this manner) skewed reasoning, we will see that I never said that this was the EXCLUSIVE cause. Undoubtedly it IS a cause, I don't really see why you are beign so narrow-minded about it. It's like you want to absolve the Mexican people of all guilt, however small, that they may bear in the case of their own poverty.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Note that you are not being persecuted. Harbor no misconceptions that I care to agitate your egotism. I, an individual, am challenging you, an individual, to back up what you just spouted. Go.</DIV></DIV>

Okay, I'll go:
<SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; mso-ansi-language: EN">According to the World Bank, ?corruption and crime continue to be serious and chronic problems.? A failure of law enforcement (Government) has allowed the continued high rate of crime and GOVERNMENTAL corruption.</SPAN>

According to Dr, DeJanvry, from 1992 to 2002, there has been little decline in the incidence of extreme poverty. However, the overall number of poor has increased. This is due to a number of factors, including the macroeconomic crises during this period of time and the susceptibility of the poor to these crises. The lack of sustained economic growth, the high costs of instability and marked socioeconomic inequality in Mexico have limited the ability of economic growth to reduce poverty, de Janvry argued. Over the same timeframe, however, Mexico has shown some progress in meeting the basic needs of its population, compared to other similar countries. As the indicators presented revealed, the Mexican government?s social policy has been successful in reducing infant mortality and improving secondary school enrollment, for example.



<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">It seems to me that socioeconomic inequality can be chalked up to a lack of social programs (run by the government?) and a lack of other governmental policies, like those that get rid of corruption. Read on.</B>



Under the Fox administration, the federal government?s social policies have been incorporated into the Contigo program. However, the impact of this set of initiatives on poverty levels has been limited, according to de Janvry. Due to the government?s failure to increase its tax base, Mexico?s public spending has failed to grow. Thus, even if expenditures on social development have increased, there has been a decline in economic sector expenditures. At the same time, the weak fiscal capacity of the state has limited its ability to redistribute wealth, even in periods of economic growth. The lack of investment in the economic sector, in areas such as infrastructure, also reflects the constraints on government spending.

The design of the Contigo strategy is innovative. It is a multidimensional project that aims to address the income and basic needs of the poor. In addition, it seeks to coordinate the different programs and ministries involved. Finally, it follows the life-cycle needs: prenatal, childhood, adolescence, adult and elderly. However, in terms of the implementation of the strategy, Contigo has not been efficient in reducing poverty. In Mexico, poverty is the result of income scarcity, inequality and the vulnerability and marginalization of the poor. According to de Janvry, this inequality is sometimes reinforced by the same government programs that intend to reduce poverty. Only 20 percent of the social development budget is destined for programs that are directly targeted at the poor population. And at the same time, initiatives directed at the extremely poor usually leave a significant portion of the poor without protection against economic instability, increasing the probability that this larger group could fall under the extreme poverty line.

In 2002, half the population in Mexico was living in poverty and one fifth was living in extreme poverty. At the national level, in 2002 the rates for access to electricity, water and sanitation were 98, 90 and 80 percent, respectively.



<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Nice, sounds like Mexican governments are doing a bang-up job so far.</B>



<SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; mso-ansi-language: EN">Mexico's agrarian reform program began in 1917, when the government began distribution of land to farmers. Extended further in the 1930s, delivery of land to peasants continued into the 1960s and 1970s at varying rates. This cooperative agrarian reform, which guaranteed small farmers a means of subsistence livelihood, also caused land fragmentation and lack of capital investment, since commonly held land could not be used as collateral. Regionally poor soils, several recent years of low rainfall, and rural population growth have made it difficult to raise the productivity and living standards of Mexico's subsistence farmers.</SPAN>

<SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; mso-ansi-language: EN">In an effort to raise rural productivity and living standards, Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution was amended in 1992 to allow for the transfer of communal land to the farmers cultivating it. They then could rent or sell it, opening the way for larger farms and economies of scale. By early 1996, however, only six farmers' cooperatives had voted to dissolve themselves, perhaps because the government provides subsidies for communal land seeded by farmers. The subsidy was 708 pesos per hectare in 1999-2000 and 829 pesos per hectare in 2000-01. Since communal land use is formally reviewed only every 2 years, privatization of these communal lands may continue to be very slow.</SPAN>

This renewed growth rested on shaky foundations. Mexico's external indebtedness mounted, and the peso became increasingly overvalued, hurting nonoil exports in the late 1970s and forcing a second peso devaluation in 1980. Production of basic food crops stagnated, forcing Mexico in the early 1980s to become a net importer of foodstuffs. The portion of impor

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>How did i assume this burden?</DIV></DIV>You advance a position, you become responsible for proving it - with more than two points, if necessary, and that is quite necessary for a position like yours.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>"Self-righteousness?" "Simple-minded judgement?" That almost sounds insulting. I'm not self-righteous, I'm a person who tries to live by a moral code in a world of people trying to do away with and discredit my code and do whatever the hell they want. If you want to beleive that that is self-righteousness, then your right to be in error will be exercised. The fact that I am not a saint is a forgone conclusion given that nobody is perfect. I try to do as well as I can by the moral code I beleive in, and i resent the fact that others who do not live by this code see my decision to do so as self-righteousness. I am not a WASP-american anyway.</DIV></DIV>Everyone here with a developed sense of right and wrong has a moral code. Not everyone here affects dramatic diction, evokes tragic literary figures, and postures as a lone figure upholding the right in a world of indulgence when describing what they believe.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Your example about republicans is wrong as well. Granted, it IS a broad generalization, it doesn't fit because to work</DIV></DIV>You're right. I deleted it.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>By telling me that narrow-minded assumptions about non-WASPs by WASPs is "what's wrong with this country" you assume the burden of proving to me that narrow-minded assumptions are the sole blemish on an otherwise spotless record for the USA.</DIV></DIV>You knew as you typed this that it wasn't a valid contention - I used the article the, yes, but honestly, what American believes his country only has only a single problem? (Indeed, what citizen of any particular country?) - but I'll indulge you anyway in explaining myself. I do think that intolerance is still one of America's biggest problems, if not its primary issue. Before we can even pretend to fully realize our national principles, we are obliged to accept the different groups we've disenfranchised in the past or do today. By me, speaking generally about minorities in a negative way is counterproductive to our advancement as a society: prejudices and negative preconceptions about a culture by established Americans (by the way, I never said by WASP Americans, but I digress) - even if they hold some truth - cannot benefit the country in the long run.

Try again with the article you posted, if you care to. It describes comparatively recent economic developments, before which Mexico was still economically disposed towards poverty. To trace the historical sequence that resulted in Mexico's current financial state would require much more than a single article from a single source on a limited period of time and would doubtless point to endless causes. Granted, a corrupt government is doubtless a factor in their problems, but my point in challenging you to prove that the Mexican government alone engendered poverty in Mexico was to illustrate that you can't. History is never so straightfoward.
My significant point is this: move to tolerate and include minorities in our society rather than to insult and by consequence alienate them.

I recant my personal animosity. You're allowed your character flaws. Seeing them coupled with the ridiculous contention that Mexico is poor because of only Mexicans incited me to comment on them, but I doubt seeing them will provoke me in any future context.

Whatever, man. I showed you proof of mismanagement of Mexican Economics and you still just sit there and pontificate.

I feel no need to prove anything further. If the evidence I've proveded you with isn't satisfactory, it's your judgement that made it so.

I never insulted mexicans or other minorities. I never punished them, or said thay needed different treatment. At the very basest level, I was saying that nobody deserves SPECIAL treatment, because by doing so, only insults the group by assuming that they cannot make for themselves what other groups can.

pfft... "Dramatic diction..." Nice alliteration. Very magnanimous of you to allow humanity its character flaws... to do otherwise would be "intolerant." You don't want to be part of "the problem with this country." :smile:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

A second retraction: you really are a dumbf**k.

Quickly: your "proof" demonstrated little; you did insult them; that I am arrogant is a buried horse; if you take issue with the idea that intolerance is a major problem for America and the West, articulate why.

Actually, spare me. The sound you've just heard is my book on Nickelplate closing. It reads:

Presumptuous c**t.
Fin.

daaaaaaamm............***rolls away rock***.........i gotta leave on sabatical more often....

Doc B... :dodgy:

Cassius, you're just so intolerant. It makes me cry, because you don't tolerate. It's because I'm not a WASP, isn't it? Profanity is also really cool and taboo. You sound edgy and maddox-like when you use it. I can feel the power.

I didn't hear any book-closing sounds, but way to affect dramatic diction. :biggrin:

Just for debate's sake, what was the apparent insult I threw at them? Use simple terms.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Maddox is cool.

---

o

Actually, spare me. The sound you've just heard is my book on Nickelplate closing. It reads:

Presumptuous c**t.
[i]Fin.

[/i] can't wait for the movie. that's gonna be facking sweet.

Profanity is also really cool and taboo. You sound edgy and maddox-like when you use it. I can feel the power.

Profanity is a tool. He used it effectively.

Maddox rocks.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting French Toast</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Profanity is a tool. He used it effectively.

</DIV></DIV>
You're a tool.

Maddox is quite often a Tool.

Bewbies, as you know, the movie is never quite as good as the book. Having my own movie would be facking sweet, though.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Profanity is a tool, and it is effective if your intent in using it is to make a lot of people not enjoy listening to you speak. I only use profanity among friends where it's accepted and when I'm really irate. I used to use it all the time, but then I realized that there are many people who do not enjoy hearing the word "f**k" in every sentence. A lot of those people who would rather not hear profanity have something that I might want. If they're repelled by my presence they're less likely to give whatever that is to me.

And no, Maddox does not rock. Maddox is a douchebag with a website. There are a lot of them.

---

o

Baron von Snickers FTW.

Profanity and Maddox FTL.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

And no, Maddox does not rock. Maddox is a douchebag with a website. There are a lot of them.

Agreed.

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

profanity is a nice shortcut to emphasis and/or intensity. example:

GIMME YOUR MONEY.
GIMME YOUR f**kING MONEY.

maddox is an entertainer. maddox is awesome.

Maddox rox your face.

And yes, profanity is a tool. I am not a tool. Good one though, Nickel.

Profanity is more effective than not swearing in many situations. If you use it in every situation, it loses its effect. However, for someone who doesn't swear every sentence, when you use profanity it really drives your point through.

On the other hand, there are people like Nickel who think that swearing is bad and if you use it you're bad etc.

I'm sure you'll have another brilliant response to this though.

I think the sign of a well-developed vocabulary is when a person can get their urgency or emotion across without offensive words.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

a mexican boy in L.A.
he only wanted to play
but nickelplate said
"f**k off or your dead,
we know that your daddy is gay"

:rolleyes:

---

i eat paint

I've had a Mexican GF... you guys are goofy...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Sure... you'll take their women and all. Plenty of racists make exceptions when it comes to sex.

HAHA. I'm not racist and I don't have sex. But, it's only fair after all these other races steal our women for so long!!!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
I think the sign of a well-developed vocabulary is when a person can get their urgency or emotion across without offensive words.

Would you take issue with Ginsberg's usage of f**k in Howl? - perhaps Larkin's in This Be the Verse? Clearly, these men were hindered by their cramped vocabularies. Their powerlessness to articulate themselves is especially laughable when we compare their verse to Nickelplate's flawless and evocative diction. On the contrary, I think the best indicator of facility with the English language is the ability to alternate between the vulgarities and colloquialisms of everyday exchange and artful high or precise academic diction.

By the way, offensive to who? I grew up listening to rap - swearing has never phased me.

So how about those computer games. I find them swell. Almost nifty even.

I grew up listening to rap - swearing has never phased me.

Well, that's good for you.

Cassius, I think that in literary works, most time, the author is either recalling a historical account in which profanity took place, or they are quoting a fictional character who used profanity. Normally authors don't write profanity for no reason. An author is not going to write a Hillbilly as saying "well, I'm confounded by this blasted contraption!" The book would be unrealistic. Profanity is not witohut a place in society, but in regular conversation I think we can do without it about 98% of the time.

And profanity is offensive to, well, just some people. Lots of people just don't like to hear it.

Yak_Fighter... I love computer games! I played a sweet one recently! its called" Dark Messiah: Might and Magic. It's so cool.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting reaper47</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Well, that's good for you.</DIV></DIV>
Point being: the syllables themselves carry no absolute nastiness. Casually uttering bitch or f**kin' or what have you has never soured a conversation for me. It's part of my area's slang, saturated by constant exposure to rap as we are.

As for the notion that f**k is consistently spoken by characters rather than narrators, true enough. However, it may be used artfully:<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting Allen Ginsberg, Howl</div><div class="quotetext">who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight in policecars for committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication,
who howled on their knees in the subway and were dragged off the roof waving genitals and manu-scripts,
who let themselves be f**ked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy,</div></div>That particular f**k got the poem banned - and if you touch such a nerve with one word that you incur legal action, you know it's a strong word. Another:<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting Philip Larkin, This Be the Verse</div><div class="quotetext">They f**k you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were f**ked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.</div></div>Larkin's rhyme may seem overly sing-songy to a generation of poets that rarely depart from vers libre, but beneath the piece's superficial sound is something quite powerful - the image of a man dismayed by his own f**ked-up character blaming his parents for his faults, but then realizing that they, too, were victims, recipients of another generation's neuroses - and which absolutely hinges on the word f**k for its resonance.

In both of these contexts, f**k is the word, as Pound would have put it - the single term capable of capturing the character of the action it describes in its fullness.

I seem to have forgotten what the hell we were talking about in the first place...

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

You mean what the f**k we were talking about in the first place....