Jump to content

This is America!


Recommended Posts

They left but Hubby made sure all the rig pigs new what had transpired, I doubt she has much business anymore-- white or black. Sickening stuff.
Absolutely sickening. And your husband should, seriously, report this incident, with names and details, to the US attorney. PM me with e-mail if you want some help.

This is not my America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
The South is stuck in the sixties jbg.

My husband was in the Gulf of Mexico doing some work, his co-worker and he went out for lunch one day. The waitress informed my husband's friend that he wasn't welcome, stunned hubby asked why. Because he's black and we don't serve insert the N word. His coworker is from Nigeria, my husband was stunned. He informed her that she could be sued for discrimination, she just laughed. Jebus it's the twenty first century and this kind of garbage is going on.

They left but Hubby made sure all the rig pigs new what had transpired, I doubt she has much business anymore-- white or black. Sickening stuff.

One disgusting incident, and you attribute that attitude to "the South?" You yourself say you doubt she has much business any more. If this were the attitude of the South, then no place in the South would be getting much business -- because as you said, black and white find that type of behavior disgusting and inexcusable and don't do business at such places. Every nation has it's bigots. Every nation has its racists. To attribute this one waitresses' behavior the "the South" is just plain wrong on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you feel the need for these 'rah rah America' posts, jbg? I really don't get it. I can certainly understand defending America if someone is unjustly criticizing it, but why the need to start a 'we are just so great' thread? I noticed a lot of Canadians haven't jumped in saying how great things are 'only in Canada.' Seems to me when someone has confidence in their 'greatness,' they don't have to be shouting out to the world about how great they are.

ummmmm, not to completely laugh out loud here - but do you live in Canada or have you ever been here?

Canada is the most disgustingly, obviously nationalistic, pigheadedly patriotic countries on the face of the earth.

As a woman from France once said to me in broken english back when I used to be part of the bragging masses: "sure...I like zee Canada, but what eez wit all of zee flags? flags on backpakcs, flags at woodstock, flags everywhere zee canadian flag eez"

How do you know who the Canadian is at a party overseas? He'll tell you.

You should read "Why I Hate Canadians" (written by a Canadian).

Here is a neat excerpt:

Our feelings toward America are complex, but they can be summed up in the following five (5) axiomatic propositions of Canadian Nationalism vis-a-vis the Americans:

1. Boy, we hate Americans.

2. We really do.

3. Really.

4. I'm not kidding. We really hate them.

5. So how come they never pay us any attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so true about Canadians overseas. I'm Canadian and I used to purposefully avoid them if possible, although if I was wearing a Molson Canadian shirt or some other give away as to my Nationality and someone tried to strike up a tired conversation about our shared background, I found telling them I was from Newfoundland usually shut them up. HA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to say in response to the original argument about freedom of speech in the US is:

Don't Taze me BRO!"

On the freedom of speech issue, I was challenged about where the US is less restrictive about speech than the UK. I can't find the exact post.

One big answer is libel and slander laws. A "public figure" virtually cannot sue for libel and slander unless the publisher's intent was malicious. The threat of a suit, largely absent in the US, is a big disincentive to exercise of free speech rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
One big answer is libel and slander laws. A "public figure" virtually cannot sue for libel and slander unless the publisher's intent was malicious. The threat of a suit, largely absent in the US, is a big disincentive to exercise of free speech rights.

The threat of a suit is also a big disincentive to printing lies, something that happens too often in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
ummmmm, not to completely laugh out loud here - but do you live in Canada or have you ever been here?

No, I don't live in Canada, but I spend a lot of time there. I've never really run into the "we hate America" crowd there, but I sure do see it on this board.

Canada is the most disgustingly, obviously nationalistic, pigheadedly patriotic countries on the face of the earth.

Like I said, I do see that on this board. It's been a learning experience for me.

As a woman from France once said to me in broken english back when I used to be part of the bragging masses: "sure...I like zee Canada, but what eez wit all of zee flags? flags on backpakcs, flags at woodstock, flags everywhere zee canadian flag eez"

As I said earlier regarding criticism of Americans flying the flag, I don't see why anyone would criticize a nation for flying their flag, for being proud of their flag. Personally, I love my flag. :) Americans decorate in Americana. I think that French woman was out of line with her comment.

How do you know who the Canadian is at a party overseas? He'll tell you.

So will most Americans. A whole lot of them are very boisterous about it. But then, maybe as a nation we are a bit more boisterous than most, and really, there's nothing wrong with that. I think Americans are friendlier than a lot of other nations, we don't hesitate to strike up a conversation with strangers-- and that's perceived as being crude/rude/whatever by some, but I like that about us.

You should read "Why I Hate Canadians" (written by a Canadian).

I'm going to look for that book. :)

You've made it clear that you're no longer part of the Canadian "bragging masses," so how do you feel about the "America is the greatest nation on earth, rah rah rah" crowd?

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't live in Canada, but I spend a lot of time there. I've never really run into the "we hate America" crowd there, but I sure do see it on this board.

Like I said, I do see that on this board. It's been a learning experience for me.

As I said earlier regarding criticism of Americans flying the flag, I don't see why anyone would criticize a nation for flying their flag, for being proud of their flag. Personally, I love my flag. :) Americans decorate in Americana. I think that French woman was out of line with her comment.

So will most Americans. A whole lot of them are very boisterous about it. But then, maybe as a nation we are a bit more boisterous than most, and really, there's nothing wrong with that. I think Americans are friendlier than a lot of other nations, we don't hesitate to strike up a conversation with strangers-- and that's perceived as being crude/rude/whatever by some, but I like that about us.

I'm going to look for that book. :)

You've made it clear that you're no longer part of the Canadian "bragging masses," so how do you feel about the "America is the greatest nation on earth, rah rah rah" crowd?

I love America - actually the individuals - spent a year and a half debating and lecturing them - brilliant young people exist - wise older men and woman - there is great hope for them..to bad orgainized crime took over - but the populace will remove the corporate facist that infected the grand White House - give them time - they will recover..they were the former light of the world - better to give them a light than to blow out the remaining ember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
- but the populace will remove the corporate facist that infected the grand White House - give them time - they will recover..

430 days left until the next president takes office. That's 430 days too many, but at least the end is in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

430 days left until the next president takes office. That's 430 days too many, but at least the end is in sight.

This was the most amazing sequence of events I have ever witnessed - to see the Empire to the south suffer such an insult at the hands of men of limited intelligence and character...a lot can happen in 430 - and remember - metal illness no matter how well and expertly medicated - strikes those in high positions as well as the lowest of the low - Just hope the dope holds out and works - these guys are nuts...and no one has noticed because we all respect the rich and privledged to much - that only us poor folk go crazy - or suffer from genetically transmitted forms of mental disease - for Gods sake they had a monkey sitting in the oval office and a VP handler hiding in a bunker worried about if his battery would hold out...the one that powered his embryonic heart...my my my - you would have thought someone would have noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely sickening. And your husband should, seriously, report this incident, with names and details, to the US attorney. PM me with e-mail if you want some help.

This is not my America.

Hubby made sure several thousand rig workers were informed of how this man was treated, rest assured the resturant's owner isn't in business anymore. Word of mouth is a powerful tool when dealing with a racist, how this man thought he'd survive in business by being overtly racists is beyond me. Sadly parts of the deep south are as backward as those that live in the mountains in my province. Inbreeding and lack of education over the decades doesn't produce very nice people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...for Gods sake they had a monkey sitting in the oval office and a VP handler hiding in a bunker worried about if his battery would hold out...the one that powered his embryonic heart...my my my - you would have thought someone would have noticed.

We did notice..and promptly elected them to a second term. Those who want the power for their own causes will have to get it the hard way, after getting their asses kicked by a "monkey".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of a suit is also a big disincentive to printing lies, something that happens too often in the U.S.
OK, so Americans are freer to slander others without putting up or shutting up...any other examples of US superiority for us serfs?
That's a very negative view of an extremely positive aspect of US law. This applies only to "public figures".

A bit of history is in order. In 1960, black protesters seeking equal rights ran a full-page advertisement in the New York Times referring to Montgomery, Alabama Police Commissioner Sullivan's brutal tactics. The Southern bigots used the libel laws as a sledgehammer to try to still the glorioius integrationist revolution sweeping the land. The advertisement contained some minor inaccuracies. As the US Supreme Court explained it:

The Court described the alleged "libel":

It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs 1 were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capital steps, they sang the National Anthem and not ‘My *259 Country, ‘Tis of Thee.’ Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day. Not the entire student body, but most of it, had protested the expulsion, not by refusing to register, but by boycotting classes on **715 a single day; virtually all the students did register for the ensuing semester. The campus dining hall was not padlocked on any occasion, and the only students who may have been barred from eating there were the few who had neither signed a preregistration application nor requested temporary meal tickets. Although the police were deployed near the campus in large numbers on three occasions, they did not at any time ‘ring’ the campus, and they were not called to the campus in connection with the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, as the third paragraph implied. Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four; and although he claimed to have been assaulted some years earlier in connection with his arrest for loitering outside a courtroom, one of the officers who made the arrest denied that there was such an assault.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, *258-259, 84 S.Ct. 710,**714 - 715 (U.S.Ala. 1964)

The Supreme Court of Alabama, in upholding the ,000 damage award (about $2,500,000 in today's money) stated:

The punishment by way of damages is intended not alone to punish the wrongdoer, but as a deterrent to others similarly minded. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. Weldon, supra; Advertiser Co. v. Jones, supra [267 Ala. 171, 100 So.2d 696, 61 A.L.R.2d 1346]; Webb v. Gray, 181 Ala. 408, 62 So. 194.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 273 Ala. 656, *685, 144 So.2d 25, **49 (Ala.1962)

Thus, the intended purpose of libel and slander laws is to chill expression. When "public officials" are protected by this "chill" one winds up with the serviant press that Canada has, where the CBC, CTV and major papers were the Liberal Parties' poodle for a long time.

1For sake of brevity, I am placing the actual description of the "inaccurate" statements in a post immediately following this one (link).

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1This is the portion of the Supreme Court decision omitted above (link to post). Inclusion is necessary for balance, i.e. so the people not agreeing with me can see what the inaccuracies indeed were, but inclusion would have made the post unmanageably long

Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960.FN1 Entitled ‘Heed Their Rising Voices,’ the advertisement began by stating that ‘As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread non-violent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.’ It went on to charge that ‘in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. * * *’ Succeeding *257 paragraphs purported to illustrate the ‘wave of terror’ by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, ‘the struggle for the right-to-vote,’ and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery.

The text appeared over the names of 64 persons (and) was signed at the bottom of the page by the ‘Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South,’ and the officers of the Committee were listed.

Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:

Third paragraph:

‘In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang ‘My Country, ‘Tis of Thee’ on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.'

Sixth paragraph:

‘Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home almost killing his wife and child. They have *258 assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times-for ‘speeding,’ ‘loitering’ and similar ‘offenses.’ And now they have charged him with ‘perjury’-a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. * * *‘

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, *256-258, 84 S.Ct. 710,**713 - 714 (U.S.Ala. 1964)

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1This is the portion of the Supreme Court decision omitted above (link to post). Inclusion is necessary for balance, i.e. so the people not agreeing with me can see what the inaccuracies indeed were, but inclusion would have made the post unmanageably long

"Constitution" ? Human Rights! What - don't they know there is no constitution nor is there a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - just quote from the Canadian Charter in a court of law - they laugh at you..same as in the states - rule of law is replace by rule of policy - it's the lazy man's democracy - Most sadly assume that both our charter and their constitution are adhered to at least to some degree..no so..the only person that ever did well by our charter was Margret Trudeau - it worked for her when she was staggering about hold the wheel of a car - and exercising her right to mobility..

.other than that - the American and Canadian freedom documents are dispised and great effort is made by all to trample them...if we all partook in law - and behaved lawfully - half of our corporately controled institutions would come to a grinding halt...Freedom = bad buisness....and as we all know the economy comes first - to hell with happiness and the persuit of it - happy people are hard to control - and that my little children is why that old witch judge took the Christmas tree out of the court house --- makes people happy..and we can't have that - they may not submit to abuse as quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Constitution" ? Human Rights! What - don't they know there is no constitution nor is there a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - just quote from the Canadian Charter in a court of law - they laugh at you..same as in the states - rule of law is replace by rule of policy - it's the lazy man's democracy - Most sadly assume that both our charter and their constitution are adhered to at least to some degree..no so..the only person that ever did well by our charter was Margret Trudeau - it worked for her when she was staggering about hold the wheel of a car - and exercising her right to mobility..
I see we have another far left-winger on the loose, one even to my left, which is difficult. From blunderbuss attacks on the RCMP (in another thread) to ridiculous statements about the Constitution and the Charter, I don't know where to start. The US and for that matter Canada are freer that virtually any place on earth, certainly freer than the North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Iran you apparently so greatly admire.
.other than that - the American and Canadian freedom documents are dispised and great effort is made by all to trample them...if we all partook in law - and behaved lawfully - half of our corporately controled institutions would come to a grinding halt...Freedom = bad buisness....and as we all know the economy comes first - to hell with happiness and the persuit of it - happy people are hard to control - and that my little children is why that old witch judge took the Christmas tree out of the court house --- makes people happy..and we can't have that - they may not submit to abuse as quickly.
What are you trying to say here? That the U.S. Constitution is somehow despised; yes, by the September 11 attackers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

About America's Freedom of Speech:

People were 'free' to take the "Bush Pledge" at a campaign rally:

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."

I don't know whether to :lol: or :( or just :rolleyes:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it, jbg. In America its harder to sue somebody for slander and so Americans have more freedom of speach than us peons in the commonwealth.

Shall I use my right or left to jerk you off?

If you read the decision, and its progeny, it applies only to public figures but I guess that's a bit too sophisticated for you. While the term "public figures is admittedly an amorphuous one, surely it includes elected officials, and surely it doesn't include the private expression of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the decision, and its progeny, it applies only to public figures but I guess that's a bit too sophisticated for you. While the term "public figures is admittedly an amorphuous one, surely it includes elected officials, and surely it doesn't include the private expression of opinion.

What's "amorphuous" mean? Thats a real nice word...sure would like to use it sometimes...sounds like something french where there is romance involved. You can have all the freedom of speech you want..but you must have someone truely interested in listening to your freedom of speech...if there is not an affected listener then - if their is no monkey there is no show...all the talking in the world is useless unless there is a willingness to listen to reason - if you have a government or population that is deaf ---------then you have full and real freedom to speak...as long and as long as your little heart desires...so - can any one find a listener? Surely I may learn the art someday and you can talk to me---in the mean time I am talking and talking and talking. Dictating...everyone is a dictator without a listener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
If you read the decision, and its progeny, it applies only to public figures but I guess that's a bit too sophisticated for you. While the term "public figures is admittedly an amorphuous one, surely it includes elected officials, and surely it doesn't include the private expression of opinion.

I fail to see what's good about being able to freely slander public figures. As you said, that includes elected officials-- but it would also include those running for office. I don't know about you, but when I read about a public figure, especially an elected official or one running for office, I'd like to know that it's the truth. Unfortunately, that's not the case. You seem to think that's a good thing; worth bragging about, in fact. I don't see it that way and can certainly understand why others outside of the U.S. wouldn't see it that way.

We need more accountabilty for what's said, not laws to make slander easier to get away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "amorphuous" mean? Thats a real nice word...sure would like to use it sometimes...sounds like something french where there is romance involved.
Means, in this context, changeable, indefinite. The toughest questions are the situations where someone, hypothetically, goes to a Town Hall meeting, and makes a statement of some kind. The members o the Town Council then accuse the speaker, say, of taking tax deductions for property taxes they haven't paid. It turns out that the speaker did nothing of the kind, because she's in the hole for five years worth of income tax returns. She sues for slander. Query, did her speaking up at a public meeting transform her into a public figure? I sure don't know, and I'm a lawyer with 24 years experience.
You can have all the freedom of speech you want..but you must have someone truely interested in listening to your freedom of speech...if there is not an affected listener then - if their is no monkey there is no show...all the talking in the world is useless unless there is a willingness to listen to reason - if you have a government or population that is deaf ---------then you have full and real freedom to speak...as long and as long as your little heart desires...so - can any one find a listener? Surely I may learn the art someday and you can talk to me---in the mean time I am talking and talking and talking. Dictating...everyone is a dictator without a listener.
That still doesn't change the fact that one can speak their minds with little or no fear of reprisal. We ended our involvement in Viet Nam that way, after all.
I fail to see what's good about being able to freely slander public figures. As you said, that includes elected officials-- but it would also include those running for office.
If you read the excerpts of the decision the public figure, having an unlimited treasury behind them to sue the speaker, can impose quite a chill on speech by suing over some minor inaccuracy. The defense costs are huge even if the lawsuit is totally bogus (remember, in the US each party pays their own attorneys; it's not "loser pays" as it is in Britain and, I think, Canada).
I don't know about you, but when I read about a public figure, especially an elected official or one running for office, I'd like to know that it's the truth. Unfortunately, that's not the case. You seem to think that's a good thing; worth bragging about, in fact. I don't see it that way and can certainly understand why others outside of the U.S. wouldn't see it that way.

We need more accountabilty for what's said, not laws to make slander easier to get away with.

If you read the example in that decision, the alleged misstatements were insignificant. In the US, where slander is a "state law" matter there is a very real risk of a jury running away the way that Alabama jury did.

I don't carry the flag for those who deliberately speak falsely. But, American Woman, would you have wanted Nixon to be able to serve out his two terms and retire honorably because the newspapers, being held to a standard of perfection, would be prevented, as a practical matter, from covering Watergate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That still doesn't change the fact that one can speak their minds with little or no fear of reprisal. We ended our involvement in Viet Nam that way, after all.

If you read the excerpts of the decision the public figure, having an unlimited treasury behind them to sue the speaker, can impose quite a chill on speech by suing over some minor inaccuracy. The defense costs are huge even if the lawsuit is totally bogus (remember, in the US each party pays their own attorneys; it's not "loser pays" as it is in Britain and, I think, Canada).

If you read the example in that decision, the alleged misstatements were insignificant. In the US, where slander is a "state law" matter there is a very real risk of a jury running away the way that Alabama jury did.

I don't carry the flag for those who deliberately speak falsely. But, American Woman, would you have wanted Nixon to be able to serve out his two terms and retire honorably because the newspapers, being held to a standard of perfection, would be prevented, as a practical matter, from covering Watergate?

uh, the press in Canada is loaded with minor inaccuracies. Seems our draconian slander laws don't have the impact on free speach in this country you think it does.

Believe it or not, we too have attack ads. Its common knowledge in these parts that Harper has sex with cats and his wife is a crack dealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...