Liberals - Worst Sort of Racists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
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.[/quote]

I agree with head hunter but I do feel he fails to realize that conservatives are just as guilty of politicking. The whole Democrat versus Republican is the one evil our founding fathers did not consider.

82

Headhunter,

If you are really interested in this topic (as opposed to just stirring up shit), read Thomas Sowell’s “The Visoin of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.” You can read the first couple of pages here:

www.amazon.com/gp/reader/046508995X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8783348-2668862#reader-page

83

Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.

In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?

84

[quote]vroom wrote:
Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.[/quote]

I disagree. If you read the book it has example after example of where the left demonizes those who disagree with them, while their opponents understand that rational people can disagree without one being evil. Headhunter is the obvious exception.

[quote]
In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?[/quote]

Many times, the reason it is hard to come up with viable solutions (to social problems)is that the left prevents honest debate. They say that “smart, caring people” agree the lefts solution is right, and that it is right because “smart, caring people” agree with it. Just disagreeing with them means you are dumb and heartless. Even when it is clear that people were better off before the left intervened, to suggest that the left’s “solution” be repealed is treated as heartless and evil.

There are obvious paralleles to the way the right treats national security issues, but I’ll let you take the time to type all of that out.

85

[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]

To believe that either of their philosopies are workable and irrational is wrong.

Laissez-faire capitalism leads to a few controlling many, child labor, and other terrible things.

Communism and a propertless society is the “overreaction” to the capitalism that America used to have- and look how great that turned out for Russia.

Ayn Rand was irrational and cold hearted, and completely unrealistic. The fact that it is all HH quotes is even worse.

I know you know other philosophers HH- move away from Rand. You may as well be quoting the Communist Manifesto as the gospel.

86

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter, you are so transparent. [/quote]

Good. I always trying to speak and write as plainly as possible. Good to see that you understand my writing and my purpose.

87

Irish,

The problem is that few other philosophers embrace my ideals, and explain themselves in intelligible terms. Ever been to a philosophy class?

I suppose that someone who is not in the norm may appear to be insane. Questioning basic premises always makes the questioner appear odd to the masses.

88

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter,

If you are really interested in this topic (as opposed to just stirring up shit), read Thomas Sowell’s “The Visoin of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.” You can read the first couple of pages here:

www.amazon.com/gp/reader/046508995X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8783348-2668862#reader-page[/quote]

A good summer read.

89

[quote]vroom wrote:
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.

You named the solution yourself in the second to last paragraph. Government is not the answer. Capitalism, unfettered by the unthinking herd that wants something for nothing, is.

You see, most people simply want to loaf their lives away. Capitalism won’t let them. They must produce or perish. Pure capitalism doesn’t allow one person to shift his burdens onto another.

Capitalism is a hard system. It gives you precisely what you deserve. This we call ‘justice’.

90

Doogie,

I’m afraid I simply don’t agree with your assessment.

There is villification rampant all throughout politics these days, from both the left and the right.

Ascribing it to only the left, or trying to paint the left as some group that dismisses the views of the other is just more of the same.

To have a discussion, both sides have to listen… but today, both sides are simply talking.

91

Headhunter, are you ready for the revolution that would surely start if you just left 10 million people to die off?

Perhaps we should just proactively kill the poor, so they stop being a drain on society?

In theory, humanity has passed beyond the stage where we have to just ignore or kill off those that are less fortunate than us.

Your arguments are counter to all those, both left and right, who see humanity as anything above animals.

Anyhow, althought you wish to ignore them, there are going to be problems with pure unfettered capitalism.

Will you ignore the environment? Will you fund police and military? Will you protect the rich from the poor, who will certainly kill to survive, if it comes to that?

I am asking you for realistic solutions, not some fantasy land where the strong and successful can throw off their social duties and be a little bit richer.

Do you not think mankind can do better than “every man for himself” survival? I’m pretty sure there are solutions that don’t involve the problems we have today… why not put some energy into finding them?

92

I don’t live in fear of what a mob may do. But, I DO know that you can’t calm a mob by telling them that they are RIGHT, and that the rich got that way by robbing them, the rich have no right to their wealth, and so on. Telling people that they are entitled to an equal share of the american dream is not the road to a rational society. They are not ‘entitled’ to anything, except the right to offer to trade their work for the works of others.

When you tell someone often enough the same crock, they start to believe it. “Hey, the rich aren’t paying their fair share!” – never realizing that the businessmen are the ones who created their ‘share’ in the first place.

Without the producers, most people would be grubbing for roots in the forest. Is that what liberals desire?

93

[quote]doogie wrote:
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!

But it is accurate to say that it has hurt one race more than another.[/quote]

Yes, however, there was no way of knowing that would happen when the “New deal” (Raw Deal) was instituted.

I think because of institutionalized racism, and the black community listening to the wrong people, that is what made them end up trapped in the system. But once they were trapped, it was the Liberals who, through their polices, helped keep them there.

A self-sufficient and successful minority is contrary to the liberal philosophy. According to liberals, these kind of successful minorities don’t or shouldn’t exist without the help of the government. And yet these minorities who did achieve without the help of the government do exist and that in itself shows the flaw in the liberal thinking.

94

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t live in fear of what a mob may do. But, I DO know that you can’t calm a mob by telling them that they are RIGHT, and that the rich got that way by robbing them, the rich have no right to their wealth, and so on. Telling people that they are entitled to an equal share of the american dream is not the road to a rational society. They are not ‘entitled’ to anything, except the right to offer to trade their work for the works of others.

When you tell someone often enough the same crock, they start to believe it. “Hey, the rich aren’t paying their fair share!” – never realizing that the businessmen are the ones who created their ‘share’ in the first place.

Without the producers, most people would be grubbing for roots in the forest. Is that what liberals desire?[/quote]

Now by producers, do you mean the people that actually make the product, or the people that own the machinery? Because you know, it takes both.

95

[quote]vroom wrote:
Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.

In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?[/quote]

How?

You stop the free handouts and require work. There are tons of jobs that can and need to be done to support the infrastructure of the country. Having able-bodied people on welfare do this work is reasonable and if done correctly could lead to other opportunities. The program should also include vocational or college training. Give tax cuts to those companies that assist with this training.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but it is politically unpopular as no one wants to be the party that requires people on welfare to actually work. Who on welfare is going to vote for that? What feel-good liberal will be able to look past the “feelings” of it to see what will really be better in the long run?

96

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I don’t live in fear of what a mob may do. But, I DO know that you can’t calm a mob by telling them that they are RIGHT, and that the rich got that way by robbing them, the rich have no right to their wealth, and so on. Telling people that they are entitled to an equal share of the american dream is not the road to a rational society. They are not ‘entitled’ to anything, except the right to offer to trade their work for the works of others.

When you tell someone often enough the same crock, they start to believe it. “Hey, the rich aren’t paying their fair share!” – never realizing that the businessmen are the ones who created their ‘share’ in the first place.

Without the producers, most people would be grubbing for roots in the forest. Is that what liberals desire?

Now by producers, do you mean the people that actually make the product, or the people that own the machinery? Because you know, it takes both.
[/quote]

The person standing at the machine is paid WAY more than what they actually are worth. They get a bonus from all the scientists, engineers, businessmen and so forth that created the machine, assembled the capital, marketed the product and so forth. Labor is important, no question, but I think the guys who thought it all up in the first place deserve far more credit than someone doing repetitive motions in front of the machine.

97

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.

In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?

How?

You stop the free handouts and require work. There are tons of jobs that can and need to be done to support the infrastructure of the country. Having able-bodied people on welfare do this work is reasonable and if done correctly could lead to other opportunities. The program should also include vocational or college training. Give tax cuts to those companies that assist with this training.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but it is politically unpopular as no one wants to be the party that requires people on welfare to actually work. Who on welfare is going to vote for that? What feel-good liberal will be able to look past the “feelings” of it to see what will really be better in the long run?

[/quote]

You will become unpopular if you (1) keep writing such good, common sense and (2) get compliments from me on your posts.

Ah well, good post!!

98

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.

In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?

How?

You stop the free handouts and require work. There are tons of jobs that can and need to be done to support the infrastructure of the country. Having able-bodied people on welfare do this work is reasonable and if done correctly could lead to other opportunities. The program should also include vocational or college training. Give tax cuts to those companies that assist with this training.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but it is politically unpopular as no one wants to be the party that requires people on welfare to actually work. Who on welfare is going to vote for that? What feel-good liberal will be able to look past the “feelings” of it to see what will really be better in the long run?

[/quote]

There is an employment agency down the street from where I currently stay. Theer is usually a line of people out front by 6 in the morning. Mind you, I don’t currently even live in a big city. I think some of you are a little blind to the hassles of actually finding a job, let alone a decent one, when your skills are lacking. If you think everyone who is jobless right now simply doesn’t want to work, you are living in a fantasy land. I suppose it is nice and comfy there. The real world isn’t so “black and white”.

99

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
Doogie,

How?

You stop the free handouts and require work. There are tons of jobs that can and need to be done to support the infrastructure of the country. Having able-bodied people on welfare do this work is reasonable and if done correctly could lead to other opportunities. The program should also include vocational or college training. Give tax cuts to those companies that assist with this training.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but it is politically unpopular as no one wants to be the party that requires people on welfare to actually work. Who on welfare is going to vote for that? What feel-good liberal will be able to look past the “feelings” of it to see what will really be better in the long run?

[/quote]

What are these infrastructure jobs you’re talking about? Just so I have some idea where you’re coming from on this.
I agree that welfare recipients should be required to find work, if they’re not already.
Luckily, I’ve never been on welfare, but, isn’t it already SUPPOSED to be temporary? I didn’t think you could stay on welfare indefinately, unless you were disabled or something.

How big is this “welfare vote” you’re speaking of? Do the welfare voters have the power to pass or defeat a bill? Who knew they were that influential?

It seems easy to paint the “feel-good liberal” as the villian here, but they haven’t been in power for several years. How come the conservatives haven’t implimented this common sense solution of yours? They certainly don’t make their decisions based on how they make people feel. Maybe there’s more to it.

100

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
Doogie,

Interesting, but really, I suspect it is a sword that can cut both ways… as even the language in the preview available shows signs of of the very same adversarial nature it is describing.

In particular, I do think most people are willing to admit unintended consequences have been seen, I question the concept of the welfare state as an accepted dogma, but I am not aware of anyone having a viable solution to the current situation as of yet.

The question remains, how do we move forward without creating larger problems?

How?

You stop the free handouts and require work. There are tons of jobs that can and need to be done to support the infrastructure of the country. Having able-bodied people on welfare do this work is reasonable and if done correctly could lead to other opportunities. The program should also include vocational or college training. Give tax cuts to those companies that assist with this training.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but it is politically unpopular as no one wants to be the party that requires people on welfare to actually work. Who on welfare is going to vote for that? What feel-good liberal will be able to look past the “feelings” of it to see what will really be better in the long run?

There is an employment agency down the street from where I currently stay. Theer is usually a line of people out front by 6 in the morning. Mind you, I don’t currently even live in a big city. I think some of you are a little blind to the hassles of actually finding a job, let alone a decent one, when your skills are lacking. If you think everyone who is jobless right now simply doesn’t want to work, you are living in a fantasy land. I suppose it is nice and comfy there. The real world isn’t so “black and white”.
[/quote]

Yup. Moreover, you guys sound like Ronald Reagan slamming “welfare queens,” not that there wasn’t some truth to that, but the welfare reform pushed through by the Republican Congress under Clinton was pretty comprehensive, and that was a while ago. Things have changed.

I highly doubt anyone participating in this discussion has ever been on welfare, I certainly haven’t, but the safety net in this country is really pretty thin. If you want to bitch about wastes of money, look at the screwed up health care system and all the handouts to agriculture and the like, not efforts to create some bare minimum of social programs for those who are going through tough times. Of course, Headhunter doesn’t seem to want to look at wasted money, but just attack his political opponents as evil geniuses.