<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on Obama and courage: affirmative action is waiting in the wings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 17:54:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Column &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8220;White Man&#8217;s Greed&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-65068</link>
		<dc:creator>The Column &#187; Blog Archive &#187; &#8220;White Man&#8217;s Greed&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:53:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-65068</guid>
		<description>[...] He&#8217;s a wuss!  He hedges on welfare, he hedges on affirmative action. &#8220;[H]e has a major deficiency in the realm of moral courage.&#8221; He won&#8217;t speak up against his own church&#8217;s victim mentality until he absolutely has to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] He&#8217;s a wuss!  He hedges on welfare, he hedges on affirmative action. &#8220;[H]e has a major deficiency in the realm of moral courage.&#8221; He won&#8217;t speak up against his own church&#8217;s victim mentality until he absolutely has to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jim</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62722</link>
		<dc:creator>jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62722</guid>
		<description>Read these comments on Obama&#039;s cousins website. his blogs interesting they should mention if Obama doesn&#039;t get the election there could be burning in the us. 
Obama campaigned for him in kenya, he lost the election and they rioted, killing women and children in the ill fated church. Nice family !!!
http://raila2007.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/obama-and-the-future-kenyan-politics/#comment-7906

read comments # 14,15,16 
http://iperceive.net/obama-odinga-the-kenyan-jihad/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read these comments on Obama&#8217;s cousins website. his blogs interesting they should mention if Obama doesn&#8217;t get the election there could be burning in the us.<br />
Obama campaigned for him in kenya, he lost the election and they rioted, killing women and children in the ill fated church. Nice family !!!<br />
<a href="http://raila2007.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/obama-and-the-future-kenyan-politics/#comment-7906" rel="nofollow">http://raila2007.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/obama-and-the-future-kenyan-politics/#comment-7906</a></p>
<p>read comments # 14,15,16<br />
<a href="http://iperceive.net/obama-odinga-the-kenyan-jihad/" rel="nofollow">http://iperceive.net/obama-odinga-the-kenyan-jihad/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DuMuarier-Smith</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62584</link>
		<dc:creator>DuMuarier-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62584</guid>
		<description>Vince P:  I should have simply written that human rights have to do with person rights to be, to own their own life and mind.  The more conflicted Civil rights typically deal with &quot;how to be&quot; in social contexts, hopefully to maximize everyone&#039;s human rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vince P:  I should have simply written that human rights have to do with person rights to be, to own their own life and mind.  The more conflicted Civil rights typically deal with &#8220;how to be&#8221; in social contexts, hopefully to maximize everyone&#8217;s human rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince P</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62583</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62583</guid>
		<description>I cant speak for Sergey but I think he meant what you mentioned in your last paragraph...&quot;Human Rights&quot; meaning &quot;Political Correct Thought Police&quot; type things.

I&#039;m of the notion that if something costs other people money , then it isn&#039;t a human right.

Or .. If you can&#039;t have it on a desert island, then it isn&#039;t a human right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cant speak for Sergey but I think he meant what you mentioned in your last paragraph&#8230;&#8221;Human Rights&#8221; meaning &#8220;Political Correct Thought Police&#8221; type things.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m of the notion that if something costs other people money , then it isn&#8217;t a human right.</p>
<p>Or .. If you can&#8217;t have it on a desert island, then it isn&#8217;t a human right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DuMuarier-Smith</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62582</link>
		<dc:creator>DuMuarier-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62582</guid>
		<description>Sergey wrote:  &quot;I find the whole concept of human rights alien to US constitution, in which rights are understood as restrictions on government intervention. Human rights apologets, on other hand, do not restrict, but expand government intervention.&quot;

The Bill of Rights makes explicit those rights which the framers felt were indeed human rights, innate rights of sovereign citizens, and could not be granted, and therefore could not be denied by any gosvernment.  The Constitution was assumedly a contract between the federal government it established and the people.  All it could state were the agreed upon powers it did or did not have  Changing the contract assumedly required the permission of the people.  (Yeah, right.)  

Human rights seldom collide with each other, but they are often misrepresented as doing so.  For example, freedom of speech or conscience is rarely such as to require abridgment.  Self defense is a human right accepted even by Thomas Hobbes, and, like freedom of speech, has no counter-right with which to be in conflict.  There is no right to be free from public experiences execept in the privacy of your abode.  So if you don&#039;t want to risk offensive speech, stay home.  However, there are civil rights which have to do with relationships among people which sometimes derive from exercising human rights.  While the government can&#039;t forbid the expression of ideas, it can regulate time, place and manner to protect civil rights--which may frequently conflict.  You may have a right to taking your turn on the soap box in the park oratory.  You may not have a right to use a loud speaker everyone in the park can hear because of their right to be be sufficiently free of you to enjoy the park.

Human rights conflicts usually arise when politicians and political jocks want to sacrifice human rights for political ends.  Hate speech and hate crimes are a case in point:  Any way you cut it, when you punish someone for their emotions or attitudes regarding others, you create an Orwellian government punishing thought crimes and create political prisoners.  Such legislation is patently unconstitutional, whether by the feds or, under the 14A, by the states and local governments.

I disagree that human rights are often in conflict; civil rights frequently are often in conflict and are properly handled by governments.  Human right conflicts--as in PC thought control efforts--are usually the result of distortions and political machinations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sergey wrote:  &#8220;I find the whole concept of human rights alien to US constitution, in which rights are understood as restrictions on government intervention. Human rights apologets, on other hand, do not restrict, but expand government intervention.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Bill of Rights makes explicit those rights which the framers felt were indeed human rights, innate rights of sovereign citizens, and could not be granted, and therefore could not be denied by any gosvernment.  The Constitution was assumedly a contract between the federal government it established and the people.  All it could state were the agreed upon powers it did or did not have  Changing the contract assumedly required the permission of the people.  (Yeah, right.)  </p>
<p>Human rights seldom collide with each other, but they are often misrepresented as doing so.  For example, freedom of speech or conscience is rarely such as to require abridgment.  Self defense is a human right accepted even by Thomas Hobbes, and, like freedom of speech, has no counter-right with which to be in conflict.  There is no right to be free from public experiences execept in the privacy of your abode.  So if you don&#8217;t want to risk offensive speech, stay home.  However, there are civil rights which have to do with relationships among people which sometimes derive from exercising human rights.  While the government can&#8217;t forbid the expression of ideas, it can regulate time, place and manner to protect civil rights&#8211;which may frequently conflict.  You may have a right to taking your turn on the soap box in the park oratory.  You may not have a right to use a loud speaker everyone in the park can hear because of their right to be be sufficiently free of you to enjoy the park.</p>
<p>Human rights conflicts usually arise when politicians and political jocks want to sacrifice human rights for political ends.  Hate speech and hate crimes are a case in point:  Any way you cut it, when you punish someone for their emotions or attitudes regarding others, you create an Orwellian government punishing thought crimes and create political prisoners.  Such legislation is patently unconstitutional, whether by the feds or, under the 14A, by the states and local governments.</p>
<p>I disagree that human rights are often in conflict; civil rights frequently are often in conflict and are properly handled by governments.  Human right conflicts&#8211;as in PC thought control efforts&#8211;are usually the result of distortions and political machinations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince P</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62570</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62570</guid>
		<description>Why are the Iraqi people so barbaric that even their own government can&#039;t walk around?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are the Iraqi people so barbaric that even their own government can&#8217;t walk around?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Truth</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62558</link>
		<dc:creator>Truth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62558</guid>
		<description>Foxfier, &lt;i&gt;&quot;Have you no shame?&lt;/i&gt;

Look to the mirror you will see shameless face!

What prove you like, a video telling the truth about her visit isn&#039;t enough to you?.

McCain walked ten of meter in &quot;Shorjah&quot; market in Baghdad will all the area scured and telling it&#039;s Iraq save, while none of Iraqi goverment can walk ten meter in any place outside Bubble Zone.

Is there more lies dude, unless they are same ilk to you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Foxfier, <i>&#8220;Have you no shame?</i></p>
<p>Look to the mirror you will see shameless face!</p>
<p>What prove you like, a video telling the truth about her visit isn&#8217;t enough to you?.</p>
<p>McCain walked ten of meter in &#8220;Shorjah&#8221; market in Baghdad will all the area scured and telling it&#8217;s Iraq save, while none of Iraqi goverment can walk ten meter in any place outside Bubble Zone.</p>
<p>Is there more lies dude, unless they are same ilk to you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergey</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62548</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:26:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62548</guid>
		<description>This is a fallacy to hold human rights and fundamental freedoms on equal footing. The law can be founded either on the former, or on the latter, because they can and will contradict each other. Also, human rights of one group can contradict human rights of another group, which makes laws founded on conception of human rights riddled with contradictions. Affirmative actions are a good example of this: first, they compromiss principle of equality under law, second, they arbitrary give some  group advantage over another, so trumping human rights of unprotected group.
I find the whole concept of human rights alien to US constitution, in which rights are understood as restrictions on government intervention. Human rights apologets, on other hand, do not restrict, but expand government intervention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a fallacy to hold human rights and fundamental freedoms on equal footing. The law can be founded either on the former, or on the latter, because they can and will contradict each other. Also, human rights of one group can contradict human rights of another group, which makes laws founded on conception of human rights riddled with contradictions. Affirmative actions are a good example of this: first, they compromiss principle of equality under law, second, they arbitrary give some  group advantage over another, so trumping human rights of unprotected group.<br />
I find the whole concept of human rights alien to US constitution, in which rights are understood as restrictions on government intervention. Human rights apologets, on other hand, do not restrict, but expand government intervention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergey</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62547</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62547</guid>
		<description>I already stated, quite unambiguosly, that I believe in equality of all people under law. That is why I am against affirmative actions that contradict this bedrock principle. Moral and legal principles do not need any empirical foundation and do not depend on it. They belong to another universe, orthogonal to empirical reality. If your principles are &quot;reality-based&quot;, they can, and eventually will be, shattered by new empirical knowlege. That is, you have no principles at all. You shall not hold your legal, moral or religious beliefs hostages of the latest issue of &quot;Science&quot;, or allow your opinions and prejudices distort your legal judgments. Even ancient Romans understood this. They depicted their goddess of justice, Femida, blindfolded. Not colour blind, but completely blind.
Only savages act according their emotions and prejudices, that is why they are so insanely cruel. Civilized people have laws and principles applied irrespectively to subjective opinions about people to whom they apply.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I already stated, quite unambiguosly, that I believe in equality of all people under law. That is why I am against affirmative actions that contradict this bedrock principle. Moral and legal principles do not need any empirical foundation and do not depend on it. They belong to another universe, orthogonal to empirical reality. If your principles are &#8220;reality-based&#8221;, they can, and eventually will be, shattered by new empirical knowlege. That is, you have no principles at all. You shall not hold your legal, moral or religious beliefs hostages of the latest issue of &#8220;Science&#8221;, or allow your opinions and prejudices distort your legal judgments. Even ancient Romans understood this. They depicted their goddess of justice, Femida, blindfolded. Not colour blind, but completely blind.<br />
Only savages act according their emotions and prejudices, that is why they are so insanely cruel. Civilized people have laws and principles applied irrespectively to subjective opinions about people to whom they apply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cappy</title>
		<link>http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62528</link>
		<dc:creator>Cappy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/28/more-on-obama-and-courage/#comment-62528</guid>
		<description>Well, I&#039;m not well versed on Russia.  If there is any problem there, send more Jews here.  They are doing just fine thank you and have contributed greatly to building the USA throughout history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;m not well versed on Russia.  If there is any problem there, send more Jews here.  They are doing just fine thank you and have contributed greatly to building the USA throughout history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

