Liberals - Worst Sort of Racists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[…]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.[…][/quote]

I pinched this from a “pro-life” website:

Downward Trend Continues
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

[…]
_______AGI_________CDC
1980…1,553,900…1,297,606
1990…1,608,600…1,429,577
2000…1,312,990…**857,475
(see source for further details)

[…]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Not great enough a drop if you ask me, but enough to make the point that there is no rise of abortions balancing the decreasing unwanted teen pregnancy rates, I would argue.

Makkun

62

[quote]vroom wrote:
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.[/quote]

Part of my point is that if Bush can be called a liar because of no WMDs, why can’t I impugn libs for their welfare state disaster? Seems fair to me.

I think that the intellectuals who created all of this are at fault, not you. You have been tricked into thinking these guys acted out of benevolence. These are POLITICIANS, not humanitarians. The welfare state/Great Society was designed to keep black people in poverty. You are ascribing your good will to cunning and evil men. Why?

I still find it interesting that’s its the old guy (me) who seriously questions authority. C’mon guys, where are your balls? :slight_smile:

63

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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…

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.[/quote]

Who made this judgment? You as an individual or some vague thing ‘in the middle’?

64

[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,

ZEB wrote:

[…]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.[…]

I pinched this from a “pro-life” website:

Downward Trend Continues
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

[…]
_______AGI_________CDC
1980…1,553,900…1,297,606
1990…1,608,600…1,429,577
2000…1,312,990…**857,475
(see source for further details)

[…]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Not great enough a drop if you ask me, but enough to make the point that there is no rise of abortions balancing the decreasing unwanted teen pregnancy rates, I would argue.

Makkun[/quote]

I suspect that these recent drops are due to the aging of the population more than anything.

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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…

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.[/quote]

Marx had Das Kapital and a wide impact on world history, for better or worse.

Ayn Rand is considered an important figure in history and philosophy by roughly 0 people. She also writes bad and smells funny.

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
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.

Part of my point is that if Bush can be called a liar because of no WMDs, why can’t I impugn libs for their welfare state disaster? Seems fair to me.

I think that the intellectuals who created all of this are at fault, not you. You have been tricked into thinking these guys acted out of benevolence. These are POLITICIANS, not humanitarians. The welfare state/Great Society was designed to keep black people in poverty. You are ascribing your good will to cunning and evil men. Why?

[/quote]

It may be tough to believe in the current poisonous political atmosphere in our country, but people did (and some still do) go into government service to help their fellow man. Believe it or not, some idealistic politicians (even LBJ) thought increased social spending and a much greater welfare state would be a way to lift millions of their fellow Americans, both black and white, out of poverty.

That’s what not enough people on the right or left seem to be willing to concede about Iraq: the motives were pure (it wasn’t oil), the aim was good, but the execution has been so inept that the project teeters on the brink of disaster.

67

[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,

ZEB wrote:

[…]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.[…]

I pinched this from a “pro-life” website:

Downward Trend Continues
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

[…]
_______AGI_________CDC
1980…1,553,900…1,297,606
1990…1,608,600…1,429,577
2000…1,312,990…**857,475
(see source for further details)

[…]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Not great enough a drop if you ask me, but enough to make the point that there is no rise of abortions balancing the decreasing unwanted teen pregnancy rates, I would argue.

Makkun[/quote]

That actually makes me happy. Thanks for posting it.

68

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
Who made this judgment? You as an individual or some vague thing ‘in the middle’?

[/quote]

History. Many coutries have tried to adopt Marx’s philosophy. It has been a disaster.

No large group has tried to adopt objectivism. It is hard to get people to band together to adopt selfishness.

The fact you rely so heavily on Rand’s lunacy scares me.

69

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
Who made this judgment? You as an individual or some vague thing ‘in the middle’?

History. Many coutries have tried to adopt Marx’s philosophy. It has been a disaster.

No large group has tried to adopt objectivism. It is hard to get people to band together to adopt selfishness.

The fact you rely so heavily on Rand’s lunacy scares me.
[/quote]

No, Zap, you misunderstood. YOU, an individual, decided that objectivism is erroneous. Think of the statement “You do not exist.” Is it possible to make this statement?

When you say that individualism is faulty, it is an individual who says this. Is this a rational statement?

Think of the phrase “For the good of the community…”. What is a community, other than a collection of individuals? Is it possible for there to be such a thing as the ‘good of the community’ seperate and apart from the individuals within that community? No.

This is one reason I reject collectivism, no matter how benevolent it may appear. It must eventually turn into cannibalism, of the moral and economic sense. In so far as the world seperates individuals from this abstract community, that society turns into hell. Whether we sacrifice individuals for the proletariat or the Aryan race, its hell.

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
No, Zap, you misunderstood. YOU, an individual, decided that objectivism is erroneous. Think of the statement “You do not exist.” Is it possible to make this statement?

When you say that individualism is faulty, it is an individual who says this. Is this a rational statement?

Think of the phrase “For the good of the community…”. What is a community, other than a collection of individuals? Is it possible for there to be such a thing as the ‘good of the community’ seperate and apart from the individuals within that community? No.

This is one reason I reject collectivism, no matter how benevolent it may appear. It must eventually turn into cannibalism, of the moral and economic sense. In so far as the world seperates individuals from this abstract community, that society turns into hell. Whether we sacrifice individuals for the proletariat or the Aryan race, its hell.
[/quote]

You are the one that appears to not understand. Cannibalism results when the individual puts himself above the society and preys on others.

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think you have to give Head Hunter?s hypothesis some credence. I do not believe there is any malice intended though .But the results are the same. I agree to the point of Clinton, I do not believe he would do such a thing no more than believe Bush Lied.

Do you actually know what his hypothesis is? He isn’t talking about effects, he is talking about intent.

Maybe you should watch Blue’s Clues a bit more to quicken up those wits.[/quote]

I take his point of view as being ?if you can get a minority to believe it has a disadvantage due to the majority, or that the minority is a victim of the majority. You reinforce the minority?s short coming ?whether it is Education, Economic. As far as Blue?s Clues I assume you are insinuating my point of view is Juvenile. If I am incorrect feel free to explain.

72

[quote]Part of my point is that if Bush can be called a liar because of no WMDs, why can’t I impugn libs for their welfare state disaster? Seems fair to me.

I think that the intellectuals who created all of this are at fault, not you. You have been tricked into thinking these guys acted out of benevolence. These are POLITICIANS, not humanitarians. The welfare state/Great Society was designed to keep black people in poverty. You are ascribing your good will to cunning and evil men. Why?

I still find it interesting that’s its the old guy (me) who seriously questions authority. C’mon guys, where are your balls? :slight_smile: [/quote]

Headhunter,

Well at least there is evidence of Bush already having his mind made up and then picking and choosing which information to present.

Do you have any documents or any evidence to support your wild accusations? When you do, let us know.

Anyway, whatever it is that you are doing, it is not questioning authority. Authority is not a bunch of dead people who put policies into place during an earlier era.

Authority is the group with the power to make decisions and then enforce them. Really, that would be those that are in fact “in power”. I don’t see you questioning authority at all…

73

Pitbull,

I was just picking on your perceptivity, I wasn’t trying to call you juvenille.

74

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
No, Zap, you misunderstood. YOU, an individual, decided that objectivism is erroneous. Think of the statement “You do not exist.” Is it possible to make this statement?

When you say that individualism is faulty, it is an individual who says this. Is this a rational statement?

Think of the phrase “For the good of the community…”. What is a community, other than a collection of individuals? Is it possible for there to be such a thing as the ‘good of the community’ seperate and apart from the individuals within that community? No.

This is one reason I reject collectivism, no matter how benevolent it may appear. It must eventually turn into cannibalism, of the moral and economic sense. In so far as the world seperates individuals from this abstract community, that society turns into hell. Whether we sacrifice individuals for the proletariat or the Aryan race, its hell.

You are the one that appears to not understand. Cannibalism results when the individual puts himself above the society and preys on others.[/quote]

Oh, I understand now.

75

Did my understanding lack reason or analytical thought? I think your antagonistic style hinders your communication.

76

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Suppose you did’t want black people, for the most part, to get an education and rise out of poverty. Pay them to NOT get an education.
The typical way that most groups rise is to get an education and adopt middle-class values. Liberals decided that they didn’t want that.

They knew that if, under the cover of benevolence, they paid off the black community, they’d have a captured pool of voters.

They knew that paying people to have a minimal existence would decimate the black family (most black kids are born out of wedlock).

It may even be the case that powerful people wanted a captive group, mired in poverty, who’d spend much of their money on drugs. Who benefits from the billions siphoned off from the black community via the drug trade? (Didn’t one of the Arkansas troopers report that Clinton had an airstrip where he imported his goods? The trooper has since disappeared.)

The Great Society program and the Welfare State, insofar as these were designed to keep black people down, are some of the most racist acts ever perpetrated on an uncomprehending public.

To be continued… [/quote]

Your argument is flawed in that it presumes that all black people are on welfare and therefore could be controlled with this program. As we know not all blacks are on welfare and there are all kinds or races represented in the entitlement camp.

So if you had a reasonable point it might be more accurate to say that welfare was designed to keep poor people down and prevent them from achieving. But limiting that to one race is just ignorant!

77

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

So if you had a reasonable point it might be more accurate to say that welfare was designed to keep poor people down and prevent them from achieving. But limiting that to one race is just ignorant!

[/quote]

But it is accurate to say that it has hurt one race more than another.

78

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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…

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.

Marx had Das Kapital and a wide impact on world history, for better or worse.

Ayn Rand is considered an important figure in history and philosophy by roughly 0 people. She also writes bad and smells funny.[/quote]

Lol! Alan Greenspan (for ex), the former fed chief, was in her inner circle of students. Could his intelligient leadership have anything to do with the last 20 years of relative prosperity?

Think before writing!

79

The question at hand is if the liberals who designed our current Great Society/welfare state did so with evil intent. I think proving that would be nearly impossible – how would we prove such a thing? I think they did, simply because they are power-hungry politicians. But…

Instead, let’s think of it as you might think of an employee of yours. They convince you to go along with some scheme of theirs and it results in the opposite of what we wanted. It piles up mountains of debt for your company. Its a disaster. Did the employee do this on purpose?

Either way, the employee is FIRED. He is either evil, stupid, or both. Is it time to fire the liberals and their hare-brained welfare state? Is it time to get back to traditional American values? Yep.

80

Headhunter, you are so transparent.

This is not a liberal issue in any capacity, but you just want very badly to make it one.

Governments from both parties have had many opportunities to do something about these issues, but they have not.

If you really want to do something useful and effective, put together ways to help the less fortunate become productive members of society without the creation of negative side-effects.

Perhaps when you realize that issue is not trivial, and that any ideas you have will have unintended consequences on the economy and society, you’ll start to speak more intelligently in these matters.

Seriously, why don’t you deprogram yourself and stop looking to assign evil intent everywhere you look. You’ve done it in multiple threads on multiple topics.

I’m starting to worry about your sanity.