Not a BK fan, but they have every right to do what is best for their shareholders...earn as much money as possible. Also interesting, that Buffet is in on this deal. Kind of makes him a hypocrite since he's always lecturing on higher taxes. Let's see if Obama pulls out his pen and phone. Burger King Dares Obama To Stop It From Fleeing To Canada Burger King’s plan to scurry across the Canadian border to avoid U.S. taxes could be seen as the corporate equivalent of flipping President Barack Obama the bird. The White House vowed earlier this month to use an executive order to curb tax inversions -- deals in which U.S. companies buy smaller foreign firms in countries with lower taxes, then renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship and re-incorporate in that country. Still, Burger King said late Sunday night that it was in talks to merge with Tim Hortons, Canada’s popular bakery and coffee chain. The new, combined company would be headquartered in Canada. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-obama_n_5709683.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 |
|
|
|
Perfect!
Now we get to hear why this isn’t so by some snake oil salesman. If they are brave enough.He's right if congress and the government were abiding by the Constitution but since they don't, the money you earn belongs to the government and they'll decide how much you get to keep. But there is no doubt that Dr. Williams understands and supports the fair tax because its just what it says, a fair tax.
How much of what Dr. Williams inherited would you, or he consider earned?
Dr. Williams grew up in single family household. Raised by his mom. I believe he grew up in the same housing project as Bill Cosby. He has earned his wealth. Regardless of how he acquired his wealth....it doesn't belong to others. Then he'd probably agree with me. Inherited wealth creates a crust that we really don't need. So how much of that inherited 'crust' should belong to you, and why? |
|
|
|
Perfect!
Now we get to hear why this isn’t so by some snake oil salesman. If they are brave enough.He's right if congress and the government were abiding by the Constitution but since they don't, the money you earn belongs to the government and they'll decide how much you get to keep. But there is no doubt that Dr. Williams understands and supports the fair tax because its just what it says, a fair tax.
How much of what Dr. Williams inherited would you, or he consider earned?
Dr. Williams grew up in single family household. Raised by his mom. I believe he grew up in the same housing project as Bill Cosby. He has earned his wealth. Regardless of how he acquired his wealth....it doesn't belong to others. |
|
|
|
|
"Let me offer you my deifinition of social justice.I keep what i earn and you keep what you earn.Do you disagree?Well then tell mehow much of what i earn belongs to you -and why?"Walter E. Williams.
Anyone care to answer Dr. Williams?
|
|
|
|
But thank you for distracting a thread intended to point out the difference in response on American politics to your own private bete noirs. I hope to return the favor to you someday.
In other words, you can't dredge up a reply, no matter how weak! Here's another one trick pony, this time the anti-American is an American.... Washington Threatens The World http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39372.htmBy Paul Craig Roberts Ask yourselves, when has Washington told you anything that was not a lie? You remind me, of that British prince quoted by Tacitus saying to the Roman Senate, "You make a desert and call it peace." As though what he said mattered to those charged with the destiny of western civilization. I'm sure the Roman Senate would have agreed with my response to he and thee: "You'll get over it." By the way he said "They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire'. They make a desert and call it 'peace'". |
|
|
|
Your monomania is boring, zolace. You are capable of looking at things only through the prism of your futile hatred of this country. Enjoy your moment in the sun--as soon as the black guy is out of office, those cheering you on won't be listening anymore, and they'll instead be laughing, as I do, at a man incapable of thinking for himself.
You can mock without substance if you want to.It has been established that the Assad regime did not use sarin on Syrians, certainly not at the time in question. What I see of America is that the political spectrum has been dragged so far right by unseen forces that the liberals of today are well to the right of Ronnie Reagan. I don't see anything there to praise. I feel Americans could do with a dose of compassion and understanding of others. |
|
|
|
|
I feel sorry for people like him, though. It's not enough for the rightwing that he point out the potential problems of the liberal mindset. If he does that, but DOESN'T sign on to the rest of rightwing craziness, he has no home. The rightwing only wants to hear from a black, "you're right, massa," as Clarence Thomas has been doing for decades now on SCOTUS. Even when honest anti-welfare state principles come into play, it's not enough for the rightwing, no, you must bow and scrape to the rest of their lies and insanity as well.
|
|
|
|
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/11/the_rights_favorite_new_race_guru_why_you_should_know_jason_riley/The American left should start paying attention to the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley. His name is on the rise. An editorial board member of one of the nation’s most well-known publications, a paper that boasts an average weekday circulation of 2.4 million and falls under the umbrella of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News empire, Riley has a new book out, “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed,” which is beginning to pick up steam. This weekend, he’ll be featured on C-SPAN to talk about it. A few days ago, he sat down with Lou Dobbs. Before that, Bill O’Reilly. Now, his name is being praised by the National Journal (who called him an author who “annihilates nonsense”) and circulating throughout the Twittersphere as a man who has written “a great primer on race.” As an African-American columnist, Riley has built his brand by diverging from the “black liberal” moniker. In fact, his career has been predicated on maintaining a conspicuous level of skepticism toward the “Lean Forward” stylings of MSNBC and the left’s alleged coziness with black America. He once said: “I think there’s a pattern at MSNBC of them hiring black mediocrities like Melissa Harris-Perry, Michael Eric Dyson, Touré and, of course — the granddaddy of them all — Al Sharpton, simply to race-bait.” Quite often he goes “against the grain” (much like ESPN’s Jason Whitlock). Perhaps this explains why a friend and former colleague of his at the WSJ lauded Riley for being an “affable” editorialist “who came to his views as a college student reading writers such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer in the otherwise liberal Buffalo News,” an independent thinker whose mind was heavily influenced by the works of “economist Tom Sowell and historian Shelby Steele, black thinkers who rejected the liberal pieties about race.” Riley’s recent New York Post column“Why Liberals Should Stop Trying to ‘Help’ Black Americans” (much like his book) is undoubtedly a continuation of these teachings and his latest effort to invalidate liberal ideas. In it, he attempts to disentangle liberal rhetoric from the actual effects of liberal policies on black Americans. He wants to show how liberal ideology holds black success in the Lex Luger torture rack. But behind his fundamental question — “At what point does helping start hurting?” — also lies a troubling and familiar query, one that has historically proven resilient in American political discussion despite the best efforts to lay it to rest: Do black Americans actually need to be saved? Riley thinks this to be the case. And it’s liberalism that black Americans need to be saved from. The crux of his claim, it seems, is that liberalism’s coercive powers cause more harm to black advancement than the painful enduring legacies of American slavery and Jim Crow era racism. These legacies, Riley writes, “are not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help them ‘overcome.’” To attach a sense of urgency to his words he then cites a few obvious statistics to show how the plight of the black community has worsened in the last 50 years. “The black-white poverty gap has widened over the last decade,” he writes, adding that the “black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960” and that “the black unemployment rate has, on average, been twice as high as the white rate for five decades.” These grim statistics Riley puts forth demonstrate what we supposedly should have been skeptical of all along, liberalism’s ability to save black America. Central to Riley’s rebuke of liberal politics is the presumption that black Americans have somehow been brainwashed into thinking of themselves as victims. “Today,” Riley writes, “there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture.” This condition, Riley argues, is evidence of the triumphs(?) of liberalism, which “has also succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims.” Black Americans, so the story goes, have been duped by the liberal conspiracy. What’s more, they are as much to blame for conferring the status of victim as the grifting liberals who bequeathed that status upon them. The problem with this logic is that it is unprovable and only exists in the minds of those who rely on myth to explain their own shallow assumptions. There is no evidence that blacks see themselves as victims any more than any other demographic, whether they be white, Latino, Asian-American or whatever. Black people don’t carry with them, in the words of New York’s Jonathan Chait, a “cultural residue” of oppression that they remain entangled in any more than the next race. If Riley bothered to survey actual black Americans he might realize this much. That blacks see themselves (like I hope Riley sees himself) not as victims, but as human beings, operating from unique experiences and disparate backgrounds while all tied to a larger complicated history. While, undoubtedly, self-pity may exist for some black individuals, it has not infiltrated the masses. This is not to say that blacks have not been injured. The plundering of black people is as old as the country itself and still exists today. But it is not a result of the failures of liberalism; rather, it is a triumph of white supremacism. Liberalism did not deny opportunity and prosperity to black Americans; instead, racism attached itself to liberal policies. As the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates eloquently articulates in his June cover story, “The Case for Reparations,” the liberal holy grail, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, was crafted specifically to include the racist traditions of the Jim Crow South. “The omnibus programs passed under the Social Security Act in 1935 were crafted in such a way as to protect the southern way of life,” Coates explains. “Old-age insurance (Social Security proper) and unemployment insurance excluded farmworkers and domestics—jobs heavily occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, 65 percent of African Americans nationally and between 70 and 80 percent in the South were ineligible.” Coates also recounts how troves of black soldiers were denied access to low-interest home loans under Title III of the G.I. Bill due to racist local V.A. officials and racist lending practices by banks. Liberalism was overpowered by America’s most time-honored tradition. Of course, despite evidence to the contrary, Riley is quick to remind us that this all happened in the distant past. And to be fair, his critique supposedly is limited to the last 50 years. Perhaps that is why he calls the spoils of the civil rights movement — “the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote” — the shining example of “liberalism at its best.” This statement is not difficult to dispute, even if you only think (mistakenly) of liberalism within the confines of curbing racial discrimination. Other landmark achievements include legalizing interracial marriage and constitutional amendments banning slavery, giving blacks the right to vote, and bestowing full-personhood — rectifying the three-fifths clause — to blacks. “Liberalism at its best” was a set of laws guaranteeing black people what they supposedly were legally entitled to 100 years prior. The reoccurring theme was that “liberalism” (Riley’s definition) had to reassert its will against white supremacism. Ironically, Riley’s beacon of “liberalism at its best” — the Voting Rights Act — is currently under threat, not by liberals but by conservatives. Yet, he makes no mention of this whatsoever in his column. Instead of standing up for what he says he believes, he chooses to stand with the very man, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted to effectively destroy it. Last year, Thomas was part of 5-4 split decision that ruled the VRA was unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning was that essentially, things have changed and gotten better; racism is a relic of the past. Riley’s complaint against liberals echoes the dangerous logic used by the court (what’s in the past is in the past!). Liberals “continue to blame the past,” he writes, inferring that times have changed. Liberals, black and white, seem drunk off their “obsession with racial slights real or imagined.” Essentially, this means that we talk too much about race. He then quotes Thomas who said to a crowd, oddly enough, despite what he wrote in his memoir, that America is more color sensitive now than during his time as a black child integrating into white schools in the deep South before the legal abolition of Jim Crow. “My sadness is that we are probably today more race-and difference-conscious than I was in the 1960s when I went to school … Everybody is sensitive,” Thomas said. Doubling down, Riley claims that we live “in an era when public policy bends over backward to accommodate blacks” and that even “King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of his day.” Once again liberalism’s best efforts to save black America have had a deleterious effect on the black psyche. We can’t even help ourselves. According to Riley, the key offender of liberalism’s stranglehold over the black community is none other than America’s first black president, Barack Obama. Citing a sliver of the president’s remarks following the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin — “They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history” — Riley misconstrues the president’s empathy for liberal brainwashing. He writes: “Obama was doing exactly what liberals have been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. And the president is conditioning the next generation of blacks to do the same.” Riley calls the president’s words a “dodge” for his policy failures, a representation of the “left’s sentimental support [that] has turned underprivileged blacks into playthings for liberal intellectuals and politicians who care more about clearing their conscience or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead.” Another example of the left’s indoctrination of black minds. If this all seems like déjà vu, it should. Many of Riley’s criticisms echo the oft-cited talking points of the right wing. Which makes his polemic, one that excoriates liberals for “more of the same,” particularly laughable. It is not new ideas he yearns for, but old ones that conform with his limited pre-established political leanings. But on a deeper level, Riley’s invective sheds light on the twisted logic that continues to pervade Republican circles. He thinks that once the liberal spell is lifted, black liberation will be realized. That when blacks no longer drink the liberal Kool-Aid, believing in their status as victims, they will be made whole. Republicans, desperately trying to convince blacks to abandon the Democratic Party, have imparted the same messaging (evidence be damned): Liberals have made your lives worse; but we can save you. Rid yourselves of liberalism, and follow us down the road to salvation. But the truth is no political ideology can save black people from the tireless forces of racism. White supremacy knows no party or clique. American history has proven how resilient the virus of racism can be; even when blacks have been made equal in the eyes of the law, racism resurrects itself and spreads through the veins that gives life to the American ideals of freedom and liberty. This is history. And the Jason Rileys of the world can try to ignore it all they want. But they can only obfuscate what we feel all around us, that which we cannot separate ourselves from, that which we carry with us each day. As James Baldwin reminds us, “The great force of history comes from the fact that we carry within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.” To tell ourselves otherwise is to subscribe to a much more troubling pathology than victimhood, which is to detach ourselves from who we are. Strangely, this is the path Jason Riley has chosen. And the sad part is none of us can save him. I'm not going to discount everything Riley says. I can see where many blacks wouldn't want to be associated with liberal ideas of the welfare state, would consider just more of the plantation, and if you've seen the sad sacks, black, white or of whatever color, at the welfare office, you can understand his horror. |
|
|
|
|
at least someone else is noticing the media and their tacit support of murderous hamas
Why is the media backing the Hamas death cult?
Richard Behar:
...
Journalism ethics professors and historians take note: You are bearing witness, with few exceptions, to some of the most abysmal overseas reporting since Hearst’s New York Journal in 1898 got us into the Spanish-American War and Walter Duranty of the New York Times was ignoring Stalin’s crimes in the 1930s. “We’re not just talking bad journalism,” says Weiss. “We’re talking about journalism that functions as a tool of a terrorist organization, Hamas: breathlessly pushing its narrative, whether cowed by its threats, sympathetic to its cause, or simply ignorant.”
It’s not for lack of personnel. Israel’s Government Press Office says just over 700 foreign journalists from more than 40 countries have come to Israel to cover the war (joining the 750 already there). But only a few of them are doing their jobs right—that is, moving beyond the surface imagery and the heavy-handed (and wrong) “David and Goliath” agenda being advanced by the fascistic, death-worshipping terrorist group Hamas.
I raised the topic last week with Ambassador Ido Aharoni, Consul General of Israel in New York. “As someone who is a student of the media and a former journalist,” he says, “I find it bizarre — journalistically and morally – that after a month of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas, there were hardly any images shown in Western media of Hamas terrorists holding guns or Hamas terrorists engaged in hostile activities against Israel. It’s as if there’s only one side, and this could be a result of two reasons: Either journalists are looking for the easy story, the available story, what’s in front of their eyes. Or they’re being intimidated by Hamas. And I believe that what we’ve probably had is a combination of both.”
|
|
|
|
. this is the perfect example of the media that I was talking about: Radical Jihadist Used Gay Hookup App ‘Grindr’ to Commit Mass Murder – Media Yawns (Video) Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, August 23, 2014, 2:17 AM Radical Islamic extremist Ali Muhammad Brown used the popular gay hookup app‘Grindr’ to commit mass murder. So far the mainstream media has mostly ignored this story. Muhammad Brown murdered four gay men as a part of a “bloody crusade” to punish the U.S. government for its foreign policies. He hated the US so he killed gays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEGNJXcV-JABrown and two alleged accomplices are accused of killing 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin as he stopped at a traffic light in West Orange on his way home. The media has largely ignored this story. HotAir reported: Ali Muhammad Brown was already a suspect in the murder of three Seattle men when he shot 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin eight times at a West Orange traffic light in his home state of New Jersey in June. Brown is described as a devout Muslim man who killed as part of what prosecutors allege was a “bloody crusade” against the United States. He sought revenge against America for what he said was the wanton killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tevlin was allegedly Brown’s fourth victim. Brown’s victims, with the exception of Tevlin, had a similar background: they were young, gay men. Brown met two of his victims at a gay-themed Seattle nightclub. Court documents indicate that Brown used a mobile application to set up meetings with his two victims before committing a double homicide. Brown is also implicated in the murder of a third man whose body was found on a highway outside Seattle in April, KIRO-TV Seattle reported. Brown’s homicides made news in June, but his story fell off the radar until Wednesday when King County prosecutors charged him with murder. Brown’s prosecutors made it clear that the accused killer’s motives were to terrorize, though he did appear to operate according to a perverse code of conduct |
|
|
|
I can't believe how few in the press have anything to say about these murders committed by Hamas.....and against their own people.
.. with all do respect.... this is exactly what I and others, have been talking about for a long time.. .the media will censor the news to suit their own political agenda. Hamas is slaughtering people, isis is slaughtering people, assad is slaughtering people, but because of the abject fear of being portrayed in any way as anti-islamic or run afoul of CAIR.... the media will turn its back on the mass murdering terrorists.... |
|
|
|
Similarly, the approach to Russia has been idiotic. NATO is essentially irrelevant insofar as US geopolitical interests are concerned, so it would have made far more sense to allow Russia a sphere of influence over the former Soviet Union, especially since both America and Russia have a shared interest in containing China. Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
America and China have an equal interest in containing Russia. There won't be any long term alignment between any of those three countries, just whatever works at the moment. |
|
|
|
Do people still have conversations with you on purpose? Just because I'm anti-Democratic and anti-liberal doesn't mean that I'm a troll. Sure, outside the Western mainstream, but the West is a diseased society rotting from within, and the Western mainstream is somewhat of a hollow idol. Modernism as the West defines it needs to be deconstructed and replaced with something that works and isn't totally decadent You are a troll, because your answer to depravity is absolute depravity. You're not so much against the ways of the west as you're jealous that Slavic stupidity wasn't given a similar chance to fail on the same scale. |
|
|
|
Blacks are only 13% of the population. I didn't realize that. I think the Spanish population is much larger than that. The left doesn't want an honest discussion; never have, never will.
Even when failing to do so costs the lives of hundreds if not thousands of blacks each year. So you are equating a law enforcement officer who shoots an unarmed kid with a thug who shoots an unarmed kid and saying people really just shouldn't expect more of a law enforcement officer? Okay. Got it. That's not what was said at all, but as usual your reading comprehension is lacking. The problem is the number of people that think punching out a cop is OK and makes them a hero. And as much as you want to claim that a 6'4" 290 lb man is not a deadly weapon that could do great bodily harm or murder a cop that's not reality. MB had already fought with the cop, punched him and possibly gone for his gun and your idea that the cop should just stand there while the 290 lb hulk runs toward him is not realistic. Well, at least not to rational and civilized people which makes me wonder why you think that way. Why didn't the cop call for back up before throwing his car in reverse to come back and again confront Brown. And where are the pictures of the cop. They sure managed to get the pictures of Brown in the store that has no bearing on this case. Why can't they be as fast with pictures of the supposedly injured cop. But since it was a black man then what the hell .Instead of trying to defuse the situation they brought out the equipment that should only be used in a war zone. Put out derogatory information on brown but nothing on the cops injury. Seems a little like a serious case of CYA. |
|
|
|
Gaza: Hamas says 18 suspected informants executed:
Hamas sources said Friday's executions had been carried out by what it called the Resistance, which may suggest the involvement of other armed Palestinian factions. Hamas officials told Reuters that the first 11 executions were carried out at an abandoned police station. Witnesses said another seven people were shot by men in Hamas uniforms outside the Al-Umari mosque in central Gaza.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-2889634618 "suspected informants" were executed. Not people who had been tried and convicted in a court of Palestinian law [ not that there is such a thing] but people lined up against the wall and shot to death because somebody probably whispered in somebodies ear that he didn't trust so & so and word got around and the next thing you know he's dragged away and shot. This is the way Hamas does things. This is the kind of people the Pals voted into power when they got a chance to have a democratic vote. These are the terrorists Israel is trying to destroy. There is always two sides to every coin and just about every story as well. Its time people started realizing what Hamas really is and what their ultimate goal really is. They are not interested in a two nation solution because what they really want is to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out or into the sea. Yet many people are still convinced they are freedom fighters. They seem to think that if they disapprove of Israel they have to support Hamas. In reality both Israel and the pals are reaping the whirlwind for their past behavior. They are both paying a price but the Pals are as always paying a bigger price and will continue to do so. Hamas started this round by kidnapping three Israeli youths and murdering them. Around 2000 Palestinians have lost they lives because of this. Do you think Hamas cares? They do care, but only because that's part of the plan and they wish the death toll had been higher. Their goal is the elimination of all Jews and Israel, so they want to turn the world against Israel, and they're doing it by creating as much Palestinian civilian death as possible. |
|
|
|
Blacks are only 13% of the population. I didn't realize that. I think the Spanish population is much larger than that. The left doesn't want an honest discussion; never have, never will.
Even when failing to do so costs the lives of hundreds if not thousands of blacks each year. So you are equating a law enforcement officer who shoots an unarmed kid with a thug who shoots an unarmed kid and saying people really just shouldn't expect more of a law enforcement officer? Okay. Got it. Anyone who can punch and break an eye socket is not ''unarmed". Also, he was the thug, not the policeman. I don't especially like cops, either. But from everything that has been said, I question that he shot a person who was not threatening his life. It really is not that difficult to break someone's eye socket. A carefully landed punch can do that pretty easily. Not dismissing it as a serious injury, but I also question this officer being "severely" beaten and able to walk around and stay at the scene of this killing for a long time. The question in my post isn't really so much about this set of circumstances, it's about the standard to which we hold police officers versus anyone else. |
|
|
|
Blacks are only 13% of the population. I didn't realize that. I think the Spanish population is much larger than that. The left doesn't want an honest discussion; never have, never will.
Even when failing to do so costs the lives of hundreds if not thousands of blacks each year. So you are equating a law enforcement officer who shoots an unarmed kid with a thug who shoots an unarmed kid and saying people really just shouldn't expect more of a law enforcement officer? Okay. Got it. |
|
|
|
fun, I watched that in its entirety when it came out. Very powerful and thought provoking. I think anyone interested in the subject, and why wouldn't we be, would benefit from watching it. Actually we know why; our own mortality is a taboo subject for many. |
|
|
|
I see. So you and yours get to decide how I die simply because you have the majority vote? Majority votes supercede any personal rights, or just the right to die as one chooses to? That sounds awfully risky to me when you might someday not be in the majority. I suspect then you'd scream to the world about how no one else should decide how and when you die. How about we ban all use of any painkiller, even on a deathbed, that to ANY degree will hasten one's death? Is that fine with you, so I could not take the "easy way" out? FYI, drugs like morphine already are commonly used in every state for what amounts to doctor assisted suicide at the end stages of cancer, etc. So it still amounts to suicide, but unfortunately only after the person has had to endure great suffering that could have been avoided if our laws gave better protection to the doctors.
if you have ever worked in or visited an assisted living facility, you'd see that there is very little "living." I can fully understand and appreciate the desire to end that torture. Our society should give those suffering, like Robin Williams, a more dignified way out. "It does not communicate "you spared me"...it communicates "I'll rather die than be with you". There is no "being with you" when in a vegetative state. So much depends on the circumstances of the impending death or final illness and the state of mind and body of the person affected. A protracted demise, suffering intractable pain while conscious and aware is the antithesis of dying with dignity for many; so they choose to go out on their own terms - i.e. with dignity - while still capable of choosing. Making a distinction here between a simple decline in faculties (an 'easing out' as it were), and perhaps the more awful ways to go; ALS for example. I think suicide (self-euthanasia) could be seen as a courageous choice in some cases; actually with compassion for the person's caretakers and loved ones. I for one won't judge them, but lean to making it legal, but strictly regulated as I believe it is in Oregon. |
|
|
|
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley, who is also the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, went on “Meet the Press.” There, he shared some tough words for the black community and professional race baiters profiting off of the chaos in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting death of Michael Brown. I don’t want to litigate this in the press that the officer used excessive force, I think he should be prosecuted, but let’s not pretend our morgues and cemeteries are full of young black men because cops are shooting them,” he said. “The reality is that it’s because other black people are shooting them, and we need to talk about black criminality. And Blacks are only 13 percent of the population, but they’re 50 percent of homicide victims in this country and 90 percent of these victims are killed by other black people. At the same time, at the same weekend that this went down in Ferguson, we had 26 shootings in Chicago, but Al Sharpton didn’t head to Chicago. He headed to St. Louis because he has an entirely different agenda, which is to continue to blame whites. This are explosive and true comments which have more impact because of Riley’s first-hand experience. While Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fan the flames of racial hatred and squeeze every penny out of this tragedy, black people are being shot by other blacks in every urban city. Watch as the host Andrea Mitchell does everything she can to interrupt his clear and principled message. Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/whoa-just-40-seconds-wall-street-journal-editor-shut-al-sharpton-professional-race-baiters/#ixzz3B4njgiaB |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
