Just <i>try</i> to defend this one, Aidon.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/03/state/n160642D64.DTLA jury awarded $61 million to two FedEx Ground drivers of Lebanese descent who claimed a manager harassed them with racial slurs for two years.

Edgar Rizkallah, 43, and Kamil Issa, 36, both of Pleasanton, said in the discrimination lawsuit they were called "terrorists,""camel jockeys" and other epithets in 1999 and 2000 by Stacy Shoun, terminal manager for the Oakland FedEx Ground facility where the two men were contract drivers.

An Alameda County Superior Court jury on Friday awarded the men $50 million in punitive damages, on top of $11 million in compensatory damages the jury awarded them on May 24, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and a FedEx Ground spokesman said Saturday.

I guess that will teach FedEx to condone its managerial staff's usage of racial slurs.

It needs no defense. I have no doubt that the the punitives will be drastically reduced by the trial judge, as they always are. However, Fed Ex has probably learned not to be complacent in the harrassment of its workers.

A man shouldn't have to put up with slurs and insults because of his race or religion in order to put food on his table.

I guess that will teach FedEx to condone its managerial staff's usage of racial slurs.So would torturing and executing everyone on FedEx's board. Would you condone that?

Are hurt feelings worth $11 million in the courts now? That's more than these people would earn in their lifetimes. And <i>I</i> am going to have to pay for their retirement in Aruba (as well as their lawyer's yacht) through higher fees. It is beyond outrageous.

You don't have to defend every court award, Aidon. Every now and again you can look at a jury's decision and perhaps admit it seems rather erratic. The world won't collapse when you do it :).

You don't have to defend every court award, Aidon. Every now and again you can look at a jury's decision and perhaps admit it seems rather erratic. The world won't collapse when you do it :).

Just don't do it this Tuesday... doing such an act on 06/06/06 just might cause such a collapse :)

So would torturing and executing everyone on FedEx's board. Would you condone that?


Don't be so melodramatic. We're talking about an award of damages by a jury that was pissed off at a corporation for allowing reprehensible behavior to go on.


Are hurt feelings worth $11 million in the courts now? That's more than these people would earn in their lifetimes.


The jury was so pissed off at Fed Ex that they probably awarded as much as they could in compensatories, which includes not only earnings, but reputational injury, etc.

Do you think that an apology would suffice? Don't make me laugh.


And I am going to have to pay for their retirement in Aruba (as well as their lawyer's yacht) through higher fees.

Only if you patronize Fed Ex. If you decide to patronize a corporation that allows behavior of this sort, then you have no right to complain about the cost of doing so.

Choose an alternative.

Personally, I don't think of punitive damages as windfall for the 2 employees, I view it as a fine to the employer.

If FedEx knew about this, had a documentation trail of complaints made to superiors, yet still did nothing about it, they should be 'fined'. And just as the 40K fines given to basketball players for assaulting fans/referees means about bupkiss to the player when that player is making more than that *per minute they play*...well, the fine needs to be big enough to hurt the company. In this case it sounds like the jury agreed and wanted to hit FedEx in the pocketbook as hard as they could.

At least these guys have a case, unlike two women in Oregon who are suing Les Schwab tires for discrimination. I suppose I shouldn't say "unlike", but it sure seems iffy to me given how detailed Les Schwab's promotion regime is, and how strict it is in regards to how the corporate ladder works. If they win their suit, it will be a pity.

The jury was so pissed off at Fed Ex that they probably awarded as much as they could in compensatories, which includes not only earnings, but reputational injury, etc.

I'm sure you agree then that the jury could have made a poor decision. Does the judge direct juries to award a sum commensurate to the injuries or a sum based on how pissed off people feel?

So would torturing and executing everyone on FedEx's board. Would you condone that?

The very reason our society evolved a money based civil justice system, as far back as ancient Israel, was so that we could move beyond such barbarities as torture and execution for non criminal offenses.

In other words: What an idiotic analogy.

Are hurt feelings worth $11 million in the courts now? That's more than these people would earn in their lifetimes. And <i>I</i> am going to have to pay for their retirement in Aruba (as well as their lawyer's yacht) through higher fees. It is beyond outrageous.

Hurt feelings? Are you a member of a minority group Tudamorf? Have you ever encountered a situation where you are harassed simply because of the color of your skin or the god you worship or the sex of your significant other? Do you understand the fear that exists as you worry that one day it won't be simple words? Or the frustration in a situation where normally you would have defended your heritage with a closed fist, but instead, are forced into meek aquiescence because you have responsibilities you must provide for?

I have no sympathy for a company which sits idly by and allows their managers to use slurs and insults against their employees. The men tried to get the company to stop this man and were ignored time and time again.

FedEx got what they deserved and the men reap the benefit of a patience and pacificism I probably would not have had.

I'm sure you agree then that the jury could have made a poor decision. Does the judge direct juries to award a sum commensurate to the injuries or a sum based on how pissed off people feel?


For punitive damages, I'm pretty sure juries are permitted to award what they wish. However, the Judge subsequently has the authority to limit those punitive damages to something more reasonable...and with almost no exception in situations which have such high punitive damages, the Judge does so.

I can assure you...Fed Ex will not be paying out 61 mill in punitive damages.

The jury was so pissed off at Fed Ex that they probably awarded as much as they could in compensatories, which includes not only earnings, but reputational injury, etc.I bet most people would agree to endure a few racial slurs from their boss if they were offered a retirement package of $61 million (or even $11 million) after two years.

<i>That</i> is why it's screwed up: the reward is so out of tune with reality that people <i>want</i> to be injured just to get a shot at the jackpot reward. (And the lawyer is all too happy to take his cut, laughing all the way to the bank, of course.)

If you want to punish FedEx for misconduct, then <i>punish FedEx</i>. Don't give someone a windfall they clearly don't deserve. That money could benefit society in so many other ways. My only consolation is, at least, that the punitive damages will be taxed, giving us back a little of the money that was stolen from us.Do you think that an apology would suffice? Don't make me laugh.If you insulted me, that's what I'd expect. Not $61 million.Only if you patronize Fed Ex. If you decide to patronize a corporation that allows behavior of this sort, then you have no right to complain about the cost of doing so. Choose an alternative.Once FedEx raises their rates, the rates of similar companies will likely go up to compensate. Or maybe FedEx will compensate for the loss by firing employees to trim costs. Lawsuits hurt everyone except those laughing to the bank.

Hurt feelings? Are you a member of a minority group Tudamorf? Have you ever encountered a situation where you are harassed simply because of the color of your skin or the god you worship or the sex of your significant other? Do you understand the fear that exists as you worry that one day it won't be simple words? Or the frustration in a situation where normally you would have defended your heritage with a closed fist, but instead, are forced into meek aquiescence because you have responsibilities you must provide for?Please. They had an asshole boss; many do. It's not as if they weren't paid, or wrongly fired, or imprisoned, or tortured. People are insulted every day based on their race and don't hit the $61 million jackpot.

To give you a comparison that will bring you down to Earth: if they had been wrongly <i>imprisoned</i> by the government for a crime they never committed -- one of the worst violations of liberty next to torture and execution -- the maximum compensation they would get in California would be $100 per day (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/4900-4906.html). That's $73,000 maximum for two years of wrongful imprisonment. Now compare that to two years of a normal life, except having an asshole boss who sometimes calls you a "camel jockey".

If $61 million were what these people truly deserved, there wouldn't be enough money on the entire planet to compensate even a fraction of the victims of true injury. It's just out of whack, period. The award should be more like $25,000, which is still far more than they would be awarded in a normal country without a runaway litigation system.

As per usual, there's a tendency to defend compensation awards with comments on punitive damages and visa versa. It's seems to happen quite frequently. I'm not a legal expert, I'm allowed to get confused, some other posters should do better.

As you know full well, the $11 million dollars is a compensation award. It should not be determined by how pissy the jury feels on the day. It should be related to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. I don't see $11 million of injury in this harrassment case. Do you?

If you want to punish FedEx for misconduct, then punish FedEx. Don't give someone a windfall they clearly don't deserve. That money could benefit society in so many other ways.


Back to this, eh? I still haven't heard any good reason why punitive damages should go to someone other than the plaintiffs.

I bet most people would agree to endure a few racial slurs from their boss if they were offered a retirement package of $61 million (or even $11 million) after two years.

<i>That</i> is why it's screwed up: the reward is so out of tune with reality that people <i>want</i> to be injured just to get a shot at the jackpot reward. (And the lawyer is all too happy to take his cut, laughing all the way to the bank, of course.)

They obviously didn't want to be insulted constantly...or else they wouldn't have complained time after time after time.

Lawsuits hurt everyone except those laughing to the bank.

Every time you walk into a store with a yellow sign warning you the floor is wet...its because of lawsuits. Everytime you see a little sticker on a product warning of its dangers...its because of lawsuits. Everytime you get into a car that doesn't have a dangerous risk of exploding on contact with something...its because of lawsuits.

And who would you rather see punitive damages go to? The government? They'd start suing companies whenever the defecit was getting too high and then people would just bitch about that. Give it to charities? How long until people start suggesting that Charities don't deserve to get these punitive damages because it just makes them hunt down injured people to sue for them?

Its a false argument.

If you want to punish FedEx for misconduct, then punish FedEx. Don't give someone a windfall they clearly don't deserve. That money could benefit society in so many other ways.


Back to this, eh? I still haven't heard any good reason why punitive damages should go to someone other than the plaintiffs.

The primary reason is because it encourages people to sue. Hey, it's a lot better odds than the lottery, and tell me there won't be countless more lawsuits because people saw this and want to capitalize. 11 million is more than enough. Put the punitives in a yearly package distributed to all citizens, or God forbid, put it into the education system, police force, etc.

In a perfect world, these guys would have been able to punch the boss in the face, have him fired, and continue with their jobs. In fact, I'll be surprised if he isn't fired. To me, yeah they deserve something because the company didn't previously do anything about it (that is, if they even reported it), but giving people a free out to never have to work another day in their lives is just a horrible way to go about it.

As per usual, there's a tendency to defend compensation awards with comments on punitive damages and visa versa. It's seems to happen quite frequently. I'm not a legal expert, I'm allowed to get confused, some other posters should do better.

As you know full well, the $11 million dollars is a compensation award. It should not be determined by how pissy the jury feels on the day. It should be related to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. I don't see $11 million of injury in this harrassment case. Do you?

Compensation is often determined by how pissy the jury feels towards one of the parties involved. They are asked to make a choice of who to believe when it comes to compensation. What the plaintiffs ask for and what the defendants think is viable are drastically different (or else, generally speaking, they wouldn't have gone to trial, especially in a situation like this where liability seems so clear).

When the jury is pissed at the conduct of the defendant..they will give the Plaintiff everything asked for..and then some if possible.

The primary reason is because it encourages people to sue. Hey, it's a lot better odds than the lottery, and tell me there won't be countless more lawsuits because people saw this and want to capitalize. 11 million is more than enough. Put the punitives in a yearly package distributed to all citizens, or God forbid, put it into the education system, police force, etc.

In a perfect world, these guys would have been able to punch the boss in the face, have him fired, and continue with their jobs. In fact, I'll be surprised if he isn't fired. To me, yeah they deserve something because the company didn't previously do anything about it (that is, if they even reported it), but giving people a free out to never have to work another day in their lives is just a horrible way to go about it.

The men complained with some regularity up their 'chain of command' as it were, from what I understand. Nothing was done about it.

High verdicts don't encourage lawsuits....misconduct encourages lawsuits.

Its as simple as that.

Back to this, eh? I still haven't heard any good reason why punitive damages should go to someone other than the plaintiffs.1) They don't deserve it.
2) It creates perverse incentives to sue.
3) There are far better ways of distributing the money to "punish" and prevent future "injuries".

They obviously didn't want to be insulted constantly...or else they wouldn't have complained time after time after time.You keep confusing the issues of <i>liability</i> and <i>damages</i>. I'm sure most would agree that bosses shouldn't make slurs at underlings. The question is, how much is it worth?

Give me a valid justification for $61 million, in the context of this specific conduct, compared to other forms of compensation <i>outside the screwed up U.S. litigation system</i>. You're giving this "injury" the value of the lifetime earning power of 50 men.

If a few slurs are worth $61 million, what's a wrongful execution worth? The entire GDP of the United States? The entire country would collapse if we began to compensate every victim that way.

Damages should be proportional to the injury, not to the stupidity of the jury and the oratory of the plaintiff's attorney.Every time you walk into a store with a yellow sign warning you the floor is wet...its because of lawsuits. Everytime you see a little sticker on a product warning of its dangers...its because of lawsuits. Everytime you get into a car that doesn't have a dangerous risk of exploding on contact with something...its because of lawsuits.Yes, every stupid, common-sense warning I see on a product is the result of a lawsuit. Thanks to lawsuits, I now know that my coffee is hot, that I shouldn't eat the iPod shuffle, and that knives are sharp and can cause injury. Thanks, lawyers, for draining 2% of the GDP just to teach me those valuable lessons. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

True safety measures are the result of legislation and regulation. Trying to maintain safety through lawsuits is like trying to prevent crime by letting vigilantes with uzis rampage through the streets: chaotic, arbitrary, and ultimately self-defeating.And who would you rather see punitive damages go to?A nonprofit civil rights organization designed to combat workplace harassment, with a few mandatory audits to ensure that FedEx workers are not being harassed. Right now, there are no prophylactic measures in place to prevent a future incident. All FedEx has to do is take steps to prevent a future <i>lawsuit</i>, not a future <i>injury</i>.High verdicts don't encourage lawsuits....misconduct encourages lawsuits. Its as simple as that.ROFL. The plaintiff's attorney would not have taken the case if his projected payout had been $5,000. The bigger the jackpot, the more likely someone is to buy a lottery ticket.

Think I will sue the city of New Orleans for 75 million dollars. Their mayors "chocolate" comment made me feel unwelcome there. No elected official should be able to make others feel unwelcome and isolated.

Give me a valid justification for $61 million

Ford Pinto. Way back in the bad ol' days, Ford made this car that liked to blow up and burn people to death when rear-ended. Several families sued Ford after their family members died as a result of a KNOWN DEFECT in their product. Ford's money guys crunched some numbers and decided that based upon the penalties they had to pay to the victim's families (which weren't nearly as big as 61M), it was cheaper to pay off the dead people's relatives than to fix their product. (One might argue that this is essentially corporate-sponsored manslaughter, but that's for a different thread).

What that says to me is that the amount of money awarded when a company is found liable for damages needs to be high enough as a percentage of that company's profit margin that it is no longer cheaper to 'pay off the family'; rather, the company becomes financially compelled to actually change their (product/system/process/actions).

If FedEx only pays a pittance, do you think they'll give a rat's whisker whether or not one of their managers is running around behaving like a knuckle dragging simian?

Most large companies only respond to one thing: "how does this affect our bottom line?" If the answer is "It doesn't", whatever the issue is becomes a non-issue.

The other option, I suppose, is jailing the offending manager. But in lieu of that, I think the monetary penalty is fine. Surprisingly large, but then again, you wonder if FedEx had the opportunity to rectify the problem but didn't.

I don't think juries can do anything but take money from one and give it to the other. They couldn't do something like decide that FedEx should be penalized by helping underprivileged children could they? I'd be all for it if they could do something like that. But I don't think they get a choice in the matter.

What that says to me is that the amount of money awarded when a company is found liable for damages needs to be high enough as a percentage of that company's profit margin that it is no longer cheaper to 'pay off the family'; rather, the company becomes financially compelled to actually change their (product/system/process/actions).Who says they are changing anything? I didn't see a single prophylactic measure in the article describing the award. The plaintiffs and lawyers couldn't care less, as they now have their money.

As I said, a big dollar figure just gives FedEx the incentive to prevent lawsuits, not injuries. Next time they have a harassment claim from an employee, they will just create a ton of paperwork to show how they're not at fault. It's a lot like doctors who write irrelevant volumes of notes and run unnecessary tests on each case just to prevent a future lawsuit.I don't think juries can do anything but take money from one and give it to the other. They couldn't do something like decide that FedEx should be penalized by helping underprivileged children could they? I'd be all for it if they could do something like that. But I don't think they get a choice in the matter.Some states have, as part of tort reform, laws that silently redirect part of the punitive damages awards to the government or other organizations. California, unfortunately, does not. While we have a few good tort reform measures in place, punitive damages largely run unchecked. Luckily they are still taxed, unlike most tort compensatory damages.

You keep confusing the issues of <i>liability</i> and <i>damages</i>. I'm sure most would agree that bosses shouldn't make slurs at underlings. The question is, how much is it worth?

Trust me, I'm not confusing issues of liability and damages. I'd venture to guess I have a better understanding of the two issues than most on this board.

How much its worth is obviously 11 million dollars. How the jury came to such a figure, I don't know. I rather suspect, however, that Plaintiff's attorney(s) made a good argument and explaination for such a figure. Jury's don't hand out large verdicts for a whim and they don't pull the figure out of the air.

Give me a valid justification for $61 million, in the context of this specific conduct, compared to other forms of compensation <i>outside the screwed up U.S. litigation system</i>. You're giving this "injury" the value of the lifetime earning power of 50 men.

You, on the other hand, seem to have an inability to grasp the difference between compensatory and punitive damages. The justification for 61 million dollars in punitive damages, again, I don't know. I'm sure the attorney(s) for the Plaintiffs put forth some justification for the amount. The reason, however, is simple. The Jury felt FedEx's conduct and lack of action to be aggregious and reprehensible and felt a need to let them (and other companies) know that such actions will not be tolerated.

If a few slurs are worth $61 million, what's a wrongful execution worth? The entire GDP of the United States? The entire country would collapse if we began to compensate every victim that way.


Damages should be proportional to the injury, not to the stupidity of the jury and the oratory of the plaintiff's attorney.Yes, every stupid, common-sense warning I see on a product is the result of a lawsuit. Thanks to lawsuits, I now know that my coffee is hot, that I shouldn't eat the iPod shuffle, and that knives are sharp and can cause injury. Thanks, lawyers, for draining 2% of the GDP just to teach me those valuable lessons. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Who are you to say that the damages are or are not proportional to the injury? Serve on a jury, you'll have the opportunity to be a cheap uncaring bastard. However, I'd venture to guess even that jury probably had someone who went into the trial with a mindset like yours. Its quite prevelant in our society...until someone begins to deal with the specific issues.

Thanks to lawsuits, you also know that the lawnmower you use has a reasonable number of safety features and shouldn't have a risk of launching its blade into your legs, that the coffee you think is hot, isn't so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds if you happen to spill it, that if a train derails and spills toxic chemicals on your property, you'll get just and fair compensation...rather than what the railroad company says is just and fair compensation.

True safety measures are the result of legislation and regulation.

Bull**** they are. What crack have you been smoking?

Trying to maintain safety through lawsuits is like trying to prevent crime by letting vigilantes with uzis rampage through the streets: chaotic, arbitrary, and ultimately self-defeating.

Our tort system has been the cause of more protections than any governmental regulations. Just look at the joke which is the FDA. Pharmeceutical companies don't fear the FDA They fear tort actions. Companies poisoning communities with pollution don't fear the EPA. They fear Erin Brockovichs. Worksites don't fear OSHA. They fear the consumer advocates.

A nonprofit civil rights organization designed to combat workplace harassment, with a few mandatory audits to ensure that FedEx workers are not being harassed.

It would never work. It would suck up far more money than this lawsuit did. Further, what authority would they work under?

Right now, there are no prophylactic measures in place to prevent a future incident. All FedEx has to do is take steps to prevent a future <i>lawsuit</i>, not a future <i>injury</i>.ROFL.

You are correct. FedEx is not forced to change its ways. But I'm willing to bet it will create a top down reassessment and reworking of their harrassment policies and actions. Why? Because they don't want to loose another 70 million dollars because one of their managers decided to call someone a sand nigger.

The plaintiff's attorney would not have taken the case if his projected payout had been $5,000. The bigger the jackpot, the more likely someone is to buy a lottery ticket.

I can be reasonably sure, plaintiffs' attorney(s) had no idea this case would bring about this large of a verdict.

Think I will sue the city of New Orleans for 75 million dollars. Their mayors "chocolate" comment made me feel unwelcome there. No elected official should be able to make others feel unwelcome and isolated.

We all know you're a bigot and racist brum. No need to remind us by denigrating the Plaintiffs with your scoffing attitude.

Don't you have to go practice your Seig Heils with your compatriots?

I think this picture sums it up
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lazin.png

Who are you to say that the damages are or are not proportional to the injury?Because there is no scenario I can possibly imagine that would justify that much money, given those allegations. Wrongful death is limited to $250,000 here. Wrongful imprisonment is limited to $100 per day. Death and incarceration are two of the worst injuries a man can suffer, and hurt feelings should be 1% of the amount, if that. (There are no significant economic -- i.e., real -- damages at issue here, so it's all about hurt feelings.)However, I'd venture to guess even that jury probably had someone who went into the trial with a mindset like yours. Its quite prevelant in our society...until someone begins to deal with the specific issues.It's quite prevalent, until someone with limited intelligence and zero legal experience is charmed by a sly plaintiff's lawyer and led to believe that giving out multi-million dollar verdicts is perfectly okay.

I bet if I quizzed those jurors on the jury instructions they were given, they would all fail. They certainly didn't follow the basic introductory one that warns them not to "let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your verdict." You even admit that the large verdict (the compensatory one of $11 million) was probably due to them being "pissed off" at FedEx. Nice rational verdict there.

Compensation is often determined by how pissy the jury feels towards one of the parties involved. They are asked to make a choice of who to believe when it comes to compensation. What the plaintiffs ask for and what the defendants think is viable are drastically different (or else, generally speaking, they wouldn't have gone to trial, especially in a situation like this where liability seems so clear).

And you don't see a problem with that? The legal system is in place to give legal redress for wrongs and provide appropriate compensation. The award should always be commensurate with the injury and I cannot understand how you can even venture to suggest that "the jury was pissed off" is a vaguely reasonable excuse for their (presumably) ignoring the advice of the judge and the purpose of the legal suit and instead handing out a multi million dollar bonanza.

What will you condone next? Is it acceptable for juries to convict people and send them to the electric chair just because its bad weather and they feel grumpy?

Because there is no scenario I can possibly imagine that would justify that much money, given those allegations. Wrongful death is limited to $250,000 here.

That's an absurdity and a shame.

Wrongful imprisonment is limited to $100 per day.

That, also, is but what can you do? You can only sue the government with its permission so they have no incentive to provide for real damages.

Death and incarceration are two of the worst injuries a man can suffer, and hurt feelings should be 1% of the amount, if that. (There are no significant economic -- i.e., real -- damages at issue here, so it's all about hurt feelings.)It's quite prevalent, until someone with limited intelligence and zero legal experience is charmed by a sly plaintiff's lawyer and led to believe that giving out multi-million dollar verdicts is perfectly okay.

Ah, and defense attorneys are all slow witted and have no ability to tell the jury that handing out 61 million dollars in damages is outrageous?

I bet if I quizzed those jurors on the jury instructions they were given, they would all fail. They certainly didn't follow the basic introductory one that warns them not to "let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your verdict." You even admit that the large verdict (the compensatory one of $11 million) was probably due to them being "pissed off" at FedEx. Nice rational verdict there.

I bet you that both the defense attorney and plaintiff's attorney had input as to the jury instructions...and that the judge had the final say.

Ah, and defense attorneys are all slow witted and have no ability to tell the jury that handing out 61 million dollars in damages is outrageous?Not if the plaintiff's attorney is more charming and manages to manipulate the jury's sympathy.I bet you that both the defense attorney and plaintiff's attorney had input as to the jury instructions...and that the judge had the final say.And in the end, the jury ignored it all. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

We all know you're a bigot and racist brum. No need to remind us by denigrating the Plaintiffs with your scoffing attitude.

Don't you have to go practice your Seig Heils with your compatriots?

[Latin<TT> dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifnigrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifre</TT><TT>, dnigrt-</TT>, to blacken, defame :<TT> d-</TT>, de- +<TT> niger</TT><TT>, nigr-</TT>, black; see<TT> nek<SUP>w</SUP>-t- </TT>in Indo-European Roots

who is the bigot and racist? You Aidon are the single worst racist and bigot on these boards. You wake up every day and have to hate what you see. Everything you accuse others of is what you do. Hate much???? The hate that oozes off of you is a stench detectable for miles around. Everything you accuse others of is what you know you are guilty of.

See what you fail to see is I made a point with my comment. Or don't you think that white people can be insulted also? Is it ok if a black person or Mexican person insults whites? Is it ok for a jewish person to insult a christian, but not the opposite?? see RIGHTS have to work both ways.

so once again---since you don't seem to get called out for your insults

Don't you have to go practice your Seig Heils with your compatriots?

let me ask you "don't you have to go riot in the streets with your compatriots? Now dont get self righteous--cause you just did the same thing. But you will be too much of a hypocrite to admit it.

see to you Aidon--if a black man is insulted by a white man, well it is lawsuit time

but if a white man is insulted by a black man and says something about it-you bring out the seig heils. How dare a white man try to protect THEIR rights.

and for your info--all racist suck. but I am at least smart enough to realize that racism exist in EVERY single color of human. There are black racist, white racist, brown racist and red racist. Just because you are a minority does not mean you should get away with being a racist. Kind of defeats the whole EQUAL thing doesnt it?

The mayor of New Orleans IS a racist. It does not matter that he is black. He is a racist. Exact same category as david duke. But you are the PERFECT little LIBERAL. Because he is black he has to be the victim and not the perpetrator. So funny.

If a david duke type had made a "lets make this city vanilla" comment--you would be the first one lined up to execute him. But because the New Orleans mayor is black and made the comment about a "chocolate" city---the liberals line up as a shield in front of him and defend him. Makes every thing they say hypocritical. There can be only ONE standard. So don't EVER preach to me about racism. I believe in equal treatment for all--YOU are the one who seems to think there should be TWO standards. After making that "chocolate" comment--the mayor was reelected??? WTF. if a white mayor had been re-elected after that kind of incident there would be riots in the streets.

Just because I think whites should be entitled to the EXACT SAME protections against insults, slander and yes even physical attacks as a minority would--does not make me a racist. That makes me someone who believes in EQUAL treatment. You believing that whites should have to put up with worse treatment, makes YOU the racist.

November 2 2005 Washington Times


Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with “pointing out the obvious.”
“There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,” said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
“Party trumps race, especially on the national level,” she said. “If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It’s democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy.”
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
“Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community,” she said. “His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people.”


so are they racist? Or is it ok because they are liberal?

After all--how dare you go against what the majority want. You are allowed no individuality--no self choice. If so--then throughout the ages everyone who simply made no waves and stuck with the majority did no wrong. No matter what sins were committed.

Straight up--NO one should be allowed to be racist toward someone else. Being a minority or a liberal Does NOT give you a right to be a racist.

[Latin<TT> dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifnigrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifre</TT><TT>, dnigrt-</TT>, to blacken, defame :<TT> d-</TT>, de- +<TT> niger</TT><TT>, nigr-</TT>, black; see<TT> nek<SUP>w</SUP>-t- </TT>in Indo-European Roots

who is the bigot and racist?

I'm well aware of what denigrate means. The word predates our modern notions of racial prejudice and plays on our western societal view of the color black being bad, which in turn probably evolved from the notion that darkness is black and light is better than dark.

Denigrate came to mean what it means from usages such as the phrase "he blackened my name". It dates back from the 16th century.

You appear as ignorant for attempting to make that correlation as certain members of the African-American community looked for getting upset because that one congressmen used the word niggardly.

You Aidon are the single worst racist and bigot on these boards. You wake up every day and have to hate what you see. Everything you accuse others of is what you do. Hate much???? The hate that oozes off of you is a stench detectable for miles around. Everything you accuse others of is what you know you are guilty of.

No, I'm not. And no matter how much you'd like it to be, it just isn't so /shrug.

See what you fail to see is I made a point with my comment. Or don't you think that white people can be insulted also?

Oh, I do. I was actually fervently hoping Nagin would not be re-elected precisely because of his chocolate city comment. But your comment was made specifically to denigrate those two men who sued because of racial epithets (which comes from the latin epitheton which in turn comes from the greek epithetos and means "to add, to put"). Its purpose was to make them look ridiculous for their actions.

Is it ok if a black person or Mexican person insults whites? Is it ok for a jewish person to insult a christian, but not the opposite?? see RIGHTS have to work both ways.

Actually, to some degree white christians have lost some natural rights with their consistant oppression of those who worship other gods or have a different color of skin. Yeah, I don't fault a black man for slinging about some cracka jokes near as much as I fault a white man who tosses around some nigger jokes. Yes, it is more acceptable for a Jew to make comments about Christians than vice versa.

so once again---since you don't seem to get called out for your insults

Nor do you. The playing field is quite level.


let me ask you "don't you have to go nail some christians to a cross with your compatriots? Now dont get self righteous--cause you just did the same thing. But you will be too much of a hypocrite to admit it. To every other Jewish person EXCEPT aidon, I am sorry. Yours is a great culture and I totally respect your religion. But I refuse to respect someone like Aidon who continues to abuse every one elses religion while holding his own above reproach.

I'm not Roman, sorry. Not even modern italian. I think the closest I get is some french from my mother's side of the family.

And, no, Brum, I suspect you don't actually hold my culture or religion with any respect whatsoever. I think you're wrapped up in this notion that White Christian Americans are so oppressed because those they've oppressed for so long feel free to speak out against their actions. You find it an insult to suggest that perhaps Christendom hasn't exactly been a paragon of morality over its history, and so you decided to try and strike back by insulting Judaism, pulling out patently false or misleading information, following the examples of anti-semites everywhere.

The difference between us, Brum, is that I speak the truth. Everything I say against Christianity is based on its history, which has been a long bloody ordeal. Everything you try to spit back has been fabrications long debunked since their first debutes by anti-semites.

see to you Aidon--if a black man is insulted by a white man, well it is lawsuit time

Yes. If a black man is regularly called nigger by his white (or asian, or hispanic) superior at work...and complaints to his superior's superiors do nothing...its lawsuit time, because lawsuit time is better than the black man bringing in a baseball bat for the next time that ****head of a cracker decides to call him a nigger.

but if a white man is insulted by a black man and says something about it-you bring out the seig heils. How dare a white man try to protect THEIR rights.

Oh please. Trying to compare Nagin's comments with a person working for a manager who regularly tosses racial slurs at them is absurd, and you knew it when you made the comment. Your purpose was solely to disparage the idea that someone should get upset for being called camel jockey and terrorist because they are Arabic.

and for your info--all racist suck. but I am at least smart enough to realize that racism exist in EVERY single color of human. There are black racist, white racist, brown racist and red racist. Just because you are a minority does not mean you should get away with being a racist. Kind of defeats the whole EQUAL thing doesnt it?

I don't call my subordinates christian slurs. Nor any sort of slur.

Oh, and you're right. I am racist in one regard. I don't like Muslim Arabs. I actively attempt to keep from having any involvement with them at all.

The mayor of New Orleans IS a racist. It does not matter that he is black. He is a racist.

I agree. He's racist. I don't like him. If he called his white subordinates (if he even has any) abusive racial names, I'd support their claim for suit. But that wasn't your point, and you know it.

Exact same category as david duke.

Somehow I don't think Nagin was a member of any organization which lynched, burnt, beat, and otherwise terrorized white people. So...no, as much as I dislike Nagin and his "chocolate city" comment, I don't think he's in the same category as David Duke, by a long shot.

But you are the PERFECT little LIBERAL. Because he is black he has to be the victim and not the perpetrator. So funny.

Oh, I'm far from the perfect little liberal. Just ask Pan, Tudamorf, Jinre, et al.

November 2 2005 Washington Times



so are they racist? Or is it ok because they are liberal?

No, its ok because they are black. That's their house, so to speak, they can fight within it as they wish.

I'd certainly have some choice words for a Jewish politician who stood against certain ideals I deem fundamental for a Jew.

You Aidon are the single worst racist and bigot on these boards. You wake up every day and have to hate what you see. Everything you accuse others of is what you do. Hate much???? The hate that oozes off of you is a stench detectable for miles around. Everything you accuse others of is what you know you are guilty of.


You know, as someone who has been lurking Off Topic for a while now, I have to agree with this. Aidon, you are so full of anger and hate; it makes me sad. :frown:

This is usually where some fruitcake tries to tell me to let Jesus into my life /eyeroll.

I'm the Bitter Druid, what did you expect, fluffy kittens?