Liberals - Worst Sort of Racists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s funny how we like to look at the past through the lens of today… or everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

In the past, people had work ethics, people were naive in some ways, who would ever have imagined a society where it was okay not to work, to accept payment from the government on a continual basis.

There was a time that such a thing was unheard of.

Amazingly, when the programs were created, would be that time. So, given the attitudes of people at the time, how could they be expected to forsee such things.

I find this thread absolutely deplorable on multiple levels. How some people can think so ill of approximately half the population is amazing.[/quote]

No, I think ill of the cadre of intellectuals who foisted these ideas on an unsuspecting country. The idea that you have a safety net HAD to lead to abuse, as it has, human nature being what it is. If a person makes just as much from loafing at home as working in a min pay job, and loses health insurance to boot should they work, that can only lead to disaster.

Why did young, mostly black, teens begin having more babies out of wedlock, for ex? They knew that they could ‘lay and play’. Someone else will pick up the tab. Until the Great Society came along, having a child out of wedlock was a disaster. Now, no one even thinks twice about it. People had morals BECAUSE THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DIDN’T. Take out those consequences, and look what happened.

It is my contention that the Great Society/Welfare State discouraged our poorest citizens from bettering themselves. Was it intentional? I think so. I wouldn’t put anything beyond the evil pricks in Washington, whose lust for power know no bounds.

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
It’s funny how we like to look at the past through the lens of today… or everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

In the past, people had work ethics, people were naive in some ways, who would ever have imagined a society where it was okay not to work, to accept payment from the government on a continual basis.

There was a time that such a thing was unheard of.

Amazingly, when the programs were created, would be that time. So, given the attitudes of people at the time, how could they be expected to forsee such things.

I find this thread absolutely deplorable on multiple levels. How some people can think so ill of approximately half the population is amazing.

No, I think ill of the cadre of intellectuals who foisted these ideas on an unsuspecting country. The idea that you have a safety net HAD to lead to abuse, as it has, human nature being what it is. If a person makes just as much from loafing at home as working in a min pay job, and loses health insurance to boot should they work, that can only lead to disaster.

Why did young, mostly black, teens begin having more babies out of wedlock, for ex? They knew that they could ‘lay and play’. Someone else will pick up the tab. Until the Great Society came along, having a child out of wedlock was a disaster. Now, no one even thinks twice about it. People had morals BECAUSE THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DIDN’T. Take out those consequences, and look what happened.

[/quote]

I’m still kind of shocked that you think the welfare state was some kind of conspiracy to keep black people in bondage (believe it or not, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions as the saying goes), but you’re wrong on this point too. U.S. sexual practices and social indicators changed largely as a result of World War II, and increased promiscuity and births out of wedlock were increasing a decade before LBJ was in office.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I think you’re downplaying how influential slavery and the government’s aquisition of land was in that era. Not to mention that the population was a fraction of today’s. The"good 'ol days" of the 19th century of over.
Now would you be so kind as to actually answer my original question? I believe I asked for a WORKING REAL-WORLD example. That would be TODAY’s real-world. Thanks.

Well, your first paragraph makes no sense. As for your second, you’d never be satisfied with any answer I gave. You’d always find some little “Aha, but what about…” and then drone on about how its not really capitalism, blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps a better way of looking would be to look at all the countries around the world that are embracing capitalism. They have finally figured out that Socialism was simply a death-wish that Marx, Engels, Lenin and company foisted upon the world. The mild infection we got, the welfare state, will soon be some long distant memory, like the CCC and other such stupidities.

If you look, the more a country embraces free markets, the better off the people there are.

[/quote]

Doesn’t our country embrace the free market? I’m not looking for some little “Aha, but…”. I’m looking for an example, in today’s world. An example were the poor and underpriveledged are left to wolves, and are better off because of it.

If there is no example, I’d like to know your ideas for a solution, and maybe how you would go about implementing it. Depending on how ludicrous this solution is, I reserve the right to a couple of questions.

44

[quote]grew7 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As to the moron who wants me banned: Welcome to America. Here, we have a thing called ‘difference of opinion’. We are allowed to differ. In short, cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.

Actually, freedom of speech isn’t a right here. You give up that right (here) when you agree to the terms of service. If you were banned, you wouldn’t be able to just say “but teh fredum o’ speach lololo” and be unbanned.

Unless whoever runs/owns this site decided to unban you.[/quote]

Certainly they can ban me. I never said they could not.

After what you’ve read so far, you think I would advocate forcing someone to host my opinions? LOL!!

Wait, didn’t the Dems have a thing called the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, where radio had to provide a forum, even if they disagreed with the views expressed?
Talk to the libs, dude. They’re the ones that want to force others to promote their views.

45

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

I think you’re downplaying how influential slavery and the government’s aquisition of land was in that era. Not to mention that the population was a fraction of today’s. The"good 'ol days" of the 19th century of over.
Now would you be so kind as to actually answer my original question? I believe I asked for a WORKING REAL-WORLD example. That would be TODAY’s real-world. Thanks.

Well, your first paragraph makes no sense. As for your second, you’d never be satisfied with any answer I gave. You’d always find some little “Aha, but what about…” and then drone on about how its not really capitalism, blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps a better way of looking would be to look at all the countries around the world that are embracing capitalism. They have finally figured out that Socialism was simply a death-wish that Marx, Engels, Lenin and company foisted upon the world. The mild infection we got, the welfare state, will soon be some long distant memory, like the CCC and other such stupidities.

If you look, the more a country embraces free markets, the better off the people there are.

Doesn’t our country embrace the free market? I’m not looking for some little “Aha, but…”. I’m looking for an example, in today’s world. An example were the poor and underpriveledged are left to wolves, and are better off because of it.

If there is no example, I’d like to know your ideas for a solution, and maybe how you would go about implementing it. Depending on how ludicrous this solution is, I reserve the right to a couple of questions.
[/quote]

Well, you have the right to ask me questions only if I grant you that right. But that’s another topic…

Since you won’t accept 19th century America or Britain (1834 - 1914), I can’t answer, since those are the only examples of pure capitalism (at least close, anyway) in the modern era. The infection of the liberal-cannibal philosophy spread pretty far in the 20th century.

By liberal-cannibal philosophy, I mean the idea that someone else’s need is a claim on your life/earnings/work. You see, liberalism makes ‘need’ the mark of goodness. If someone is lacking, its your duty to fulfill that lack. That I call moral cannibalism.

46

Headhunter,

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[…]Why did young, mostly black, teens begin having more babies out of wedlock, for ex? They knew that they could ‘lay and play’. Someone else will pick up the tab. Until the Great Society came along, having a child out of wedlock was a disaster. Now, no one even thinks twice about it. People had morals BECAUSE THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DIDN’T. Take out those consequences, and look what happened. […][/quote]

Fortunately, they didn’t:

The teen birth rate has declined slowly but steadily from 1991 to 2002 with an overall decline of 30 percent for those aged 15 to 19. These recent declines reverse the 23-percent rise in the teenage birth rate from 1986 to 1991. The largest decline since 1991 by race was for black women. The birth rate for black teens aged 15 to 19 fell 42 percent between 1991 to 2002. Hispanic teen birth rates declined 20 percent between 1991 and 2002. The rates of both Hispanics and blacks, however, remain higher than for other groups. Hispanic teens now have the highest teenage birth rates.

Just funny to see how teen pregnancies rose under Reagan/Bush sen. But, at least on this account the numbers are actually getting better (although the US is still the country with most unwanted pregnancies in the western world).

Makkun

47

Freedom of speech? On a moderated board? And I’m the moron?

This is unbelievable… I’m going to search for an ignore button so I don’t have to see your posts anymore.

48

Headhunter,

Are you a public school teacher?

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
some garbage…
[/quote]

What do you think I meant concerning 20/20 hindsight?

Anyway, when you start lambasting the republicans with the same suspicion and hatred you are espousing here, then at least you won’t be a biased clown.

A clown maybe, but not as biased.

I’m pretty comfortable with economics and the concept of market forces and so forth. Yes, now, it is easy to see how it worked out, because we’ve seen it and analyzed it. It’s like thinking gravity is obvious, now that Newton has explained it to us. It is, but it wasn’t before it was understood.

By the way, just so you realize it, the free market society you speak of, neoliberalism and globalisation, they have issues to contend with also. They are not perfect, and ironically, they also require intervention by the government in order to function – so there are limits to removing policy from market forces.

What troubles me the most is that you surely didn’t think up this tripe all on your own. You’ve read another book or web site. Why this is troubling is because there are people out there with some pretty strange agendas and you seemt to soak it all up.

This means the radical right is learning how to disguise it’s messages well enough to make them semi-acceptible to the point where others, like you, are then willing to take it into more mainstream environments.

Seriously, what purpose is there in villifying liberalism with this type of garbage, especially when liberals themselves are not trying to argue that there weren’t unintended effects and consequences of various programs? Where is this coming from?

Those are the questions that need to be answered.

50

Some call it Christianity.

Anyway, nice to see you on your soapbox with respect to taxation. If all this crap is simply about taxation and your fight against it, why not just leave liberals out of it.

Either your arguments can stand on their own or they cannot.

51

[quote]makkun wrote:
Headhunter,

Headhunter wrote:

[…]Why did young, mostly black, teens begin having more babies out of wedlock, for ex? They knew that they could ‘lay and play’. Someone else will pick up the tab. Until the Great Society came along, having a child out of wedlock was a disaster. Now, no one even thinks twice about it. People had morals BECAUSE THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DIDN’T. Take out those consequences, and look what happened. […]

Fortunately, they didn’t:

The teen birth rate has declined slowly but steadily from 1991 to 2002 with an overall decline of 30 percent for those aged 15 to 19. These recent declines reverse the 23-percent rise in the teenage birth rate from 1986 to 1991. The largest decline since 1991 by race was for black women. The birth rate for black teens aged 15 to 19 fell 42 percent between 1991 to 2002. Hispanic teen birth rates declined 20 percent between 1991 and 2002. The rates of both Hispanics and blacks, however, remain higher than for other groups. Hispanic teens now have the highest teenage birth rates.

Just funny to see how teen pregnancies rose under Reagan/Bush sen. But, at least on this account the numbers are actually getting better (although the US is still the country with most unwanted pregnancies in the western world).

Makkun[/quote]

I’m not disputing your figures. However, I wonder if the abortion rate went up along with the birth rate going down.

I’m not claiming that it did, but this should be looked at as well.

52

Zeb,

Nice to see you being skeptical of statistics.

May you ALWAYS be so…

53

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
Freedom of speech? On a moderated board? And I’m the moron?

This is unbelievable… I’m going to search for an ignore button so I don’t have to see your posts anymore.[/quote]

WTF are you babbling about?

54

[quote]Go-Rilla wrote:
Headhunter,

Are you a public school teacher?[/quote]

No. Since tax dollars are extorted from helpless victims, I choose to not work in this particular field. What anyone else does is not my moral choice, its theirs.

55

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
some garbage…

What do you think I meant concerning 20/20 hindsight?

Anyway, when you start lambasting the republicans with the same suspicion and hatred you are espousing here, then at least you won’t be a biased clown.

A clown maybe, but not as biased.

I’m pretty comfortable with economics and the concept of market forces and so forth. Yes, now, it is easy to see how it worked out, because we’ve seen it and analyzed it. It’s like thinking gravity is obvious, now that Newton has explained it to us. It is, but it wasn’t before it was understood.

By the way, just so you realize it, the free market society you speak of, neoliberalism and globalisation, they have issues to contend with also. They are not perfect, and ironically, they also require intervention by the government in order to function – so there are limits to removing policy from market forces.

What troubles me the most is that you surely didn’t think up this tripe all on your own. You’ve read another book or web site. Why this is troubling is because there are people out there with some pretty strange agendas and you seemt to soak it all up.

This means the radical right is learning how to disguise it’s messages well enough to make them semi-acceptible to the point where others, like you, are then willing to take it into more mainstream environments.

Seriously, what purpose is there in villifying liberalism with this type of garbage, especially when liberals themselves are not trying to argue that there weren’t unintended effects and consequences of various programs? Where is this coming from?

Those are the questions that need to be answered.[/quote]

I can honestly say that these are my ideas. Sure, someone else has thought of them first – Malcolm X, for example. He contributed greatly to my thought. When I see black people being screwed over in this country, being used by the Dems, it makes my blood boil. You see, I regard rascism as one of the most vile things humans can do. When I see the results of the Dems policies over the past 40 years, it only goes downhill from there. The decimation of black families is a crime for which there is no forgiveness.

We are also 9 trillion dollars in debt. Think about that. We need to drastically shrink our government. I know we’ll never do that and eventually have to repudiate our currency. But, the libs IN BOTH PARTIES just keep it up. They won’t be the ones to suffer, you can bet on that.

56

[quote]vroom wrote:
If someone is lacking, its your duty to fulfill that lack. That I call moral cannibalism.

Some call it Christianity.

Anyway, nice to see you on your soapbox with respect to taxation. If all this crap is simply about taxation and your fight against it, why not just leave liberals out of it.

Either your arguments can stand on their own or they cannot.[/quote]

“All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you understand what that freedom implies?”
— Atlas Shrugged

57

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

Nice to see you being skeptical of statistics.

May you ALWAYS be so…[/quote]

Those wonderful conservatives in my neiborhood that put down the lower income young girls who became pregnant,used to ship their daughters out of state to have their babies at a private girls school.They were sent away under the guise that they were highly intelligent and needed a certain school that would challange them academically.

Their babies were given up for adoption,Is there any stats on these pregnancies or are they hidden like the fact that the girls were nocked up to begin with.

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
That reached a level of stupidy I didn’t know existed.

I just can’t wait to see how the other conservative members try to defend this guy.

He has been called out multiple times for his bizarre love of Ayn Rand’s dumb philosophy and other odd stuff.

Who is your favorite philospher, Zap?

I am my favorite philisopher. I find the tradional western philophers far too incomplete.

One of the main characters in Atlas Shrugged is an engineer and Ms. Rand greatly admired engineers for their ability to take science and use it to make all of our lives better.

Is this what you consider ‘dumb’ about her philosophy? Just curious…

[/quote]

She is far too slanted towards the individual.

Just as Marx is too slanted towards the collective.

I find them both incredibly immature an ill thought out.

The struggle in the middle of their two concepts is where the truth resides.

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
If someone is lacking, its your duty to fulfill that lack. That I call moral cannibalism.

Some call it Christianity.

Anyway, nice to see you on your soapbox with respect to taxation. If all this crap is simply about taxation and your fight against it, why not just leave liberals out of it.

Either your arguments can stand on their own or they cannot.

“All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you understand what that freedom implies?”
— Atlas Shrugged

[/quote]

HH I know you are Christian. Jesus taught the exact opposite of your philosophy on taxation. How do you resolve this?

And Jesus answered them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Mark 12:17

60

Headhunter,

Your posts make my blood boil. The accusations you throw around are incredibly insulting to large numbers of people.

Perhaps instead of trying to rewrite history and villify half the population in the process you might try to look forward based on the realities of the situation?

I’m the first person to agree that systems that create dependency and entitlement are not good. You’ve seen my argue many times for the need to support people or create opportunity without creating such situations. Hell, I’m even very much for reducing taxation!

However, as I’m liberal, you are also equating me with evil or calling me a racist, many times over by now. That is of course completely uncalled for and unjustified.

How many people are you willing to smear with your baseless accusations? Why has made you so reckless and bitter? Surely it can’t just be Rand?

I’m surprised even at the tepid agreement a few conservatives have given you because you blast liberals in the process. This whole thread stinks badly.

Your credibility is next to that of a troll… and it keeps sinking… I am sure it can only be a matter of time until you disappear completely.