4)A non-exhaustive list of black inventions: the elevator, refrigerator, the automatic gear box, supercharge system, air conditioner, traffic signals, pencil sharpener, advanced printing press, sprinkler and lawn mower, electric lamp, comb, and clothes dryer.
Alas, t-men. What else but pure racism should we expect from a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans? he’s not even any good at hiding it.
Frankly, np, some of the stuff you’ve cited is legitimately offensive, nazi-type propaganda and you’ve exposed yourself as a world class ass for posting it.
Hmm, I had high hopes for you after reading a few of your other posts, Federalist. It’s a shame to see them dashed as you now trot out this leftist nonsense.
Your Normandy link isn’t working presently. I assume it attests that black soldiers participated in the Normandy invasion. Perhaps so. Nevertheless, Buchanan made his point and such a minor quibble can’t diminish it. Whether the percentage of whites was 100% or 95%, does it really make a difference? Come on.
The same thing goes for the Civil War. It’s rather well known that there were black soldiers in the Union Army. Hollywood made a film of it starring Matthew Broderick. But that was a war started by white men in which primarily white men participated and died.
If you think Pat’s statements in that interview qualify as “pure racism,” then you are heavily intoxicated by the PC culture and will do more harm than good on this board. You will be incapable of helping others until you help yourself, by ridding your mind of the nonsense that has been programmed into you. Unless, of course, you’re a minority, in which case I suppose you can’t help it.
Pat made a point that America was basically founded for and by white people. I don’t understand how you could possibly begin to dispute the factual accuracy of that statement. Speculation about Pat’s motives is unnecessary. The statement is either true or false.
Pat doesn’t need to hide his membership in SCV. It’s a great organization that deserves the support of paleo-conservatives and libertarians everywhere. They have historical archives on their site which make for some great revisionist reading. I’m glad you brought it up:
The gang over at Lew Rockwell is pro-Confederate and so is Ron Paul, in case you weren’t aware. Why should Pat make apologies for his SCV membership?
“Frankly, np, some of the stuff you’ve cited is legitimately offensive, nazi-type propaganda and you’ve exposed yourself as a world class ass for posting it.”
Offensive? Then get offended. See how much I care. It was posted to make you think and experience alternative points of view, not to re-affirm your existing belief system.
I stated my own opinion earlier - that the Allied victory in WW2 was the greatest calamity to befall Western civilization - so what were you expecting to find in those links, quite honestly?
I see the race question as the most significant topic that is missing from the discourse on this board. We have plenty of people here with a solid understanding of economics, and nearly everyone is a conservative of one form or another, but when it comes to race people are either silent or they tow the establishment line, the way you do. This needs to change if you hope to accomplish anything besides talking.
I don’t know how many of you realize it, but nearly everything that gets discussed here qualifies as “white man’s politics”. That is to say, white males in the United States are the primary demographic representatives of political conservatism. Not white females, nor Black males, nor Asians, nor Hispanics, nor Jews, nor any other group in significant numbers.
Without white males, paleo-conservatism/libertarianism basically wouldn’t exist as an ideology. You cannot possibly ignore such an important statistical connection.
Take a break from following mainstream American politics, which is always filled with the same old bullshit, and add a few of the following sites to your daily reading list:
Anyone see the Paul interview on Maddow last night?
The biggest problem with the current Teahbaggers is that they’re too stupid to realize Paul, not Palin, is the one they want/need leading the charge, or at least someone who has his sense of “Political Philosophy”, something lost on too many Americans.
Ron Paul doesn’t want to lead because he sees the underlying philosophy as more important than the hero worship that people tend to get caught up in in these types of movements.
The Tea Party movement is made up largely of people who do not give a rip about the core tenets of libertarianism.
They are mostly dissatisfied with the establishment and pissed off at democrats. This movement is purely emotional and not driven by any particular philosophy – as witnessed by Sarah Palin’s newfound interest in it.
It will ultimately fail.
Ron Paul needs to just keep preaching the philosophy and not take sides at this point.
np, the point i was making was that the only fact he presented was that white males were 100% of the people who signed both the declaration of independence and the constitution. this is ONLY a product of the fact that blacks were enslaved during that time. black men have fought and died beside our ancestors in every war we’ve ever fought, free or not.
you did not, as your most recent post would have me believe, make the point that paleoconservatism and libertarianism wouldn’t exist were it not for white males. you posted a pat buchanan link that was full of misinformation along with some anti-semetic quote. buchanan said, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that white males were 100% of the people at normandy, vicksburg, gettysburg, etc. they also fought alongside confederates.
frankly, you’re treating it as a foregone conclusion that we all appreciate paleoconservatism and libertarianism. a lot of people see paleoconservatism as klan ideology gone mainstream.
It’s not the direction of anything, it’s a fluke. Coakley simply ran a bad campaign. I live here and I can tell you that it’s business as usual. Politics and nepotism. Nothing new under the sun.
P.S. Mass. had Republicans in office under Romney, Celluci, Swift, etc… I shall remind you of this fact every time you profess how “amazing” it is that Brown got elected.[/quote]
How long has it been since a Republican Senator held office in Mass? He took over Kennedy’s seat. I don’t care about the politics in Mass all I care about is that Brown killed cap and trade and health care.
The tea party is hear to stay, it gave us Brown and it looks like it is going to give us Rand Paul. It will most likely support Peter Schiff closer to the primaries. We must remember that the tea party convention was just one small segment of the tea party. The tea party mostly sides with the libertarian movement, which is why you see guys like Rand getting supported.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Marriage does not matter, never has never will. Its all about financial well being, marriage is nothing more then a way for people to stay safe financially. That is why you see marriages falling apart all the time over money. And right now it makes no sense to get married, all you are doing is taking a 50/50 chance of having half your stuff stolen.
The traditional family structure will return when we finally have to reap what we sowed, and fix these outdated laws that make it so women are better off just marring the guy for a while then leaving and taking half his shit plus child support and all the other bullshit the state allows them to steal.
[/quote]
Get a prenuptial agreement.[/quote]
Even then your still paying child support.
[/quote]
[quote]John S. wrote:
Marriage does not matter, never has never will. Its all about financial well being, marriage is nothing more then a way for people to stay safe financially. That is why you see marriages falling apart all the time over money. And right now it makes no sense to get married, all you are doing is taking a 50/50 chance of having half your stuff stolen.
The traditional family structure will return when we finally have to reap what we sowed, and fix these outdated laws that make it so women are better off just marring the guy for a while then leaving and taking half his shit plus child support and all the other bullshit the state allows them to steal.
[/quote]
Get a prenuptial agreement.[/quote]
Even then your still paying child support.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you support your kid?[/quote]
Child support more then not requires you to pay far more then what it takes to support the kid. Nothing wrong with supporting the kid but when you get up there in income the money you have to pay will be supporter her lifestyle.
I am sure we could find a few people on this site who could tell you that.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Nothing wrong with supporting the kid but when you get up there in income the money you have to pay will be supporter her lifestyle.
[/quote]
Truth.
I know a few women with well-to-do baby-daddy and they do not work but live extremely lavish lifestyles. One of them even brags about how she bent baby-daddy over in the child support hearings and now she can afford a driver.
In defense of this broad I will say she is a good mother and I think the father got exactly what he deserved by messing around with gold-digging broad who is exactly like her mother.
I see conservative retirees all the time start talking about entitlements and how wrong they are. They bring up Welfare and Medicaid and how those people dont pay a dime and the government still takes care of them. I admit that we pay FICA and at least should get back what we paid into the Social Security system, but it is called “Social” Security for a reason. These conservative retirees are living on a Socialist paycheck. With out it they would be destitute. They are the first to scream my generation is the one that built this country, so we are entitled to get something in return. Did they take care of their parents for their entire life? No their parents saved and put money aside to take care of them selves in the future. I look at Social Security as weekend cheat meal money and that is it.
The Baby Boomers are going to recieve the largest inheritances ever in recorded history, but generation X and Y is not going to get any of that because our parents did not want to save. They need these inheritances to pay off their debt. I am part of the 50% who pay a lot of taxes every year, and I am tired of paying for other people to do nothing.
I give 12-15% of my income to charity every year to take care of people who really need help. This country has no clue what being poor is. When you see a fat person on the side of the road asking for money come on. I went to India a couple of years ago and a boy came up looking for money. He was gray and not brown like the other children. He probably had not eaten in weeks. He lives near the train tracks and sleeps out doors near the trash heaps. India’s type of welfare is the poor can pick up anyting they want out of the trash heaps, or off the train tracks and sell it. Indians have to actually work to get something (very little). Here you just have to open up a bank account, mail box, or go to the government building to pick up a check whether Social Security or Welfare (get a lot more than basic necesities). Social Security was never enacted to support you, but to supplement your retirement money that you saved up for yourself. Many people in this country rely on other people to take care of them. It is time people start taking care of themselves, and not look for a hand out. There are those that really need help, but that is a very small percentage of people.
I am ok with helping you out when you fall on hard times. How long must that be? You finally have to kick the bird out of the nest to see if it can fly.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Nothing wrong with supporting the kid but when you get up there in income the money you have to pay will be supporter her lifestyle.
[/quote]
Truth.
I know a few women with well-to-do baby-daddy and they do not work but live extremely lavish lifestyles. One of them even brags about how she bent baby-daddy over in the child support hearings and now she can afford a driver.
In defense of this broad I will say she is a good mother and I think the father got exactly what he deserved by messing around with gold-digging broad who is exactly like her mother.[/quote]
Yes, the courts do not consider it fraud for a woman to receive huge monthly amounts of money as court-ordered child support but spend only a tiny fraction on the kid and the vast majority on luxuries, entertainment, or possessions for herself or even her boyfriends. She has absolutely no legal obligation to do anything more than the minimum for the kid.
So regardless of getting some huge amount of money, she can put the kid in the worst public school, get all his clothes at the Salvation Army, feed him the cheapest food, and so forth, while buying herself mink coats and Mercedes and the courts will only smile.
That is, smile at her. If you think you can get a reduction on account of her not actually using it for child support, they won’t smile at you.
I don’t speak from personal experience but from knowledge of the general situation.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I see conservative retirees all the time start talking about entitlements and how wrong they are. They bring up Welfare and Medicaid and how those people dont pay a dime and the government still takes care of them. I admit that we pay FICA and at least should get back what we paid into the Social Security system, but it is called “Social” Security for a reason. These conservative retirees are living on a Socialist paycheck. With out it they would be destitute. They are the first to scream my generation is the one that built this country, so we are entitled to get something in return. Did they take care of their parents for their entire life? No their parents saved and put money aside to take care of them selves in the future. I look at Social Security as weekend cheat meal money and that is it.
The Baby Boomers are going to recieve the largest inheritances ever in recorded history, but generation X and Y is not going to get any of that because our parents did not want to save. They need these inheritances to pay off their debt. I am part of the 50% who pay a lot of taxes every year, and I am tired of paying for other people to do nothing.
I give 12-15% of my income to charity every year to take care of people who really need help. This country has no clue what being poor is. When you see a fat person on the side of the road asking for money come on. I went to India a couple of years ago and a boy came up looking for money. He was gray and not brown like the other children. He probably had not eaten in weeks. He lives near the train tracks and sleeps out doors near the trash heaps. India’s type of welfare is the poor can pick up anyting they want out of the trash heaps, or off the train tracks and sell it. Indians have to actually work to get something (very little). Here you just have to open up a bank account, mail box, or go to the government building to pick up a check whether Social Security or Welfare (get a lot more than basic necesities). Social Security was never enacted to support you, but to supplement your retirement money that you saved up for yourself. Many people in this country rely on other people to take care of them. It is time people start taking care of themselves, and not look for a hand out. There are those that really need help, but that is a very small percentage of people.
I am ok with helping you out when you fall on hard times. How long must that be? You finally have to kick the bird out of the nest to see if it can fly.
Like I said, they are succeeding in portraying themselves as exactly what the liberal media has been calling them. Foolish foolish strategic blundering. If they had a cohesive strategy. Some potential and I’m sure some fine levelheaded people are involved, but the visible perceived leadership is killing them. Even Palin spent most of her speech beating up on Obama. Obama is a genuinely horrible president, but making him the centerpiece of the movement, or even making it appear that way both misses the point and is a catastrophic error in judgment.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Major shift according to Rasmussen as well:
Like I said, they are succeeding in portraying themselves as exactly what the liberal media has been calling them. Foolish foolish strategic blundering. If they had a cohesive strategy. Some potential and I’m sure some fine levelheaded people are involved, but the visible perceived leadership is killing them. Even Palin spent most of her speech beating up on Obama. Obama is a genuinely horrible president, but making him the centerpiece of the movement, or even making it appear that way both misses the point and is a catastrophic error in judgment.[/quote]
Like I said this is about about finding what message works. The tea party will return to its free market, anti establishment message really soon. Once they do that they will rise again in the polls.
You really think they won’t hesitate to throw some of these people to the curb if they start hurting there message?
