Who Blinked and Why

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.

If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.

Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.

If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.

So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]

Every single thing you mention in this requires money, in some form, which means you could not do any of this.

Without money, you could not eat, clothe, house, travel, commune, but you could still praise “the right” to do those things.

There is no upside to poverty, none.

22

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.

If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.

Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.

If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.

So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]

Every single thing you mention in this requires money, in some form, which means you could not do any of this.

Without money, you could not eat, clothe, house, travel, commune, but you could still praise “the right” to do those things.

There is no upside to poverty, none. [/quote]

God must love the poor. Why else would he have made so many of them? --Abraham Lincoln

So. One upside, anyway. God seems to love poor people more. And they seem to return the favor by loving him back more than the rich.

23

[quote]kamui wrote:

Very true.
But once the government take all of your income, you have nothing left to defend all this freedom. And it’s only a matter of time before you lose it.

[/quote]

Yet still, taking someone’s money and enslaving them are qualitatively different things.

24
25

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.

If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.

Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.

If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.

So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]

Every single thing you mention in this requires money, in some form, which means you could not do any of this.

Without money, you could not eat, clothe, house, travel, commune, but you could still praise “the right” to do those things.

There is no upside to poverty, none. [/quote]

God must love the poor. Why else would he have made so many of them? --Abraham Lincoln

So. One upside, anyway. God seems to love poor people more. And they seem to return the favor by loving him back more than the rich.
[/quote]

I can respect poor people who love God more than rich people, but I have yet to see a cashier accept love when paying for something.

When our governor passed an obscene tax increase on the rich, he quoted Luke 12:48, saying “to those who have been given much, much is expected from them.”

My problem with this is the word “given.” Very few people were given anything, I think most successful people earned their rewards.

26

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.

If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.

Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.

If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.

So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]

Every single thing you mention in this requires money, in some form, which means you could not do any of this.

Without money, you could not eat, clothe, house, travel, commune, but you could still praise “the right” to do those things.

There is no upside to poverty, none. [/quote]

God must love the poor. Why else would he have made so many of them? --Abraham Lincoln

So. One upside, anyway. God seems to love poor people more. And they seem to return the favor by loving him back more than the rich.
[/quote]

I can respect poor people who love God more than rich people, but I have yet to see a cashier accept love when paying for something.

When our governor passed an obscene tax increase on the rich, he quoted Luke 12:48, saying “to those who have been given much, much is expected from them.”

My problem with this is the word “given.” Very few people were given anything, I think most successful people earned their rewards. [/quote]

And that is talking about charity, not taxation. If it is not given voluntarily then it doesn’t really mean much. Now if he would have quoted “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” that would have been the only applicable scripture but he probably didn’t want to compare himself to an Emperor.

27

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, I don’t know that comparing the fact that the government is forcing you, by law, to give your hard earned money to a conglomerate, at a rate which you have almost zero power to control, to having to give all the proceeds of your labor to a conglomerate at a rate of 100% is all that “dumbass”.

If taking 100% of the fruits of a man’s labor is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?
[/quote]
Your premise is false, and your question is therefore absurd.

Slavery was considerably worse than simply taking 100% of a man’s income.

If the government were to take all of my income for the year and redistribute it to the poor, I would still have all the other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I would be free to travel, free to associate with people of my choosing, free to worship as I see fit, free to say or write anything that pleases me, free to marry and sire children (or not) to my heart’s content. If I chose not to work for a day or a week, the government would not torture me or maim me or send me back to the fields with whip marks on my back. The government would not have the right to force me to leave the country, or prevent me from visiting any other country that would have me. I would still be able to vote in free and fair elections. I would be free to own a gun, and to use it to defend myself if necessary.

So I would say that comparing a government program that requires all citizens to carry a basic level of health insurance to actual legally-protected slavery of an entire race is, at the very least, “dumbass”.[/quote]

Every single thing you mention in this requires money, in some form, which means you could not do any of this.

Without money, you could not eat, clothe, house, travel, commune, but you could still praise “the right” to do those things.

There is no upside to poverty, none. [/quote]

God must love the poor. Why else would he have made so many of them? --Abraham Lincoln

So. One upside, anyway. God seems to love poor people more. And they seem to return the favor by loving him back more than the rich.
[/quote]

I can respect poor people who love God more than rich people, but I have yet to see a cashier accept love when paying for something.

When our governor passed an obscene tax increase on the rich, he quoted Luke 12:48, saying “to those who have been given much, much is expected from them.”

My problem with this is the word “given.” Very few people were given anything, I think most successful people earned their rewards. [/quote]

And that is talking about charity, not taxation. If it is not given voluntarily then it doesn’t really mean much. Now if he would have quoted “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” that would have been the only applicable scripture but he probably didn’t want to compare himself to an Emperor, or a man who ended up assassinated in the streets.[/quote]

fixed.

28

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I can respect poor people who love God more than rich people, but I have yet to see a cashier accept love when paying for something.

When our governor passed an obscene tax increase on the rich, he quoted Luke 12:48, saying “to those who have been given much, much is expected from them.”

My problem with this is the word “given.” Very few people were given anything, I think most successful people earned their rewards. [/quote]

And that is talking about charity, not taxation. If it is not given voluntarily then it doesn’t really mean much. Now if he would have quoted “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” that would have been the only applicable scripture but he probably didn’t want to compare himself to an Emperor, or a man who ended up assassinated in the streets.[/quote]

fixed.[/quote]

exactly.

29

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Very true.
But once the government take all of your income, you have nothing left to defend all this freedom. And it’s only a matter of time before you lose it.

[/quote]

Yet still, taking someone’s money and enslaving them are qualitatively different things.[/quote]
I think it depends on how it’s used. Former American slavery, yes - which is what you were originally talking about

Serfdom and slavery are largely equated, and it was pretty much a system of taking people’s money

30

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Very true.
But once the government take all of your income, you have nothing left to defend all this freedom. And it’s only a matter of time before you lose it.

[/quote]

Yet still, taking someone’s money and enslaving them are qualitatively different things.[/quote]
I think it depends on how it’s used. Former American slavery, yes - which is what you were originally talking about

Serfdom and slavery are largely equated, and it was pretty much a system of taking people’s money[/quote]

Yes, depends on the slavery. Also depends on the serfdom. Serfdom tended to go much farther than mere theft. Land ties and etc.

31

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
That’s the point, Sky.

Despite the fact that there are those who believe that African Americans are a bunch of leeches who sit around making babies and buying Plasma TV’s with food stamps…the stark reality is that they always have been…and most likely will be…IN GENERAL at the bottom economically. This is independent of who is in the White House.

This is not to argue “cause-and-effect” (which FAR too many people seem to have a “answer” to; just read “PWI” for a short period of time); it’s just an economic reality.

So when someone get’s on some show; independent of their race; and says: “African-Americans have done worse under this President…”

Then I say:

“Well NO SHIT, Sherlock…”

Mufasa[/quote]

Well that may be very true regarding the economic demographic as a whole, it is possible for there to be some net relative improvement of ssid.demographic as a result of policies, events, etc. It is also possible for the net mobility of the group to remain at the status quo, or to get worse relative to other demographics. When somebody makes a claim I do expect them to back.it up, but it is conceivable the claim is true as well regardless of spin. You can’t dismiss that out of hand.[/quote]

Late back to this thread but maybe I can clear up the misunderstanding Mufasa. From the above, it appears you are positing that nobody can analyze relative trends and make the claim "african americans have done worse under this presidend/system than they did ____ "

I do not agree.

You can analyze improvement of demographics relative to each other AND relative to their past rate of progress in a society just as you can analyze the relative growth or shrinkage of inflation. You can analyze this as a result of policies enacted and you can analyze it as the result of other criteria. Therefore saying “african americans have done worse under this president than the last president” or “worse than under these policies” is no more nonsensical or meaningless than saying “inflation increased under this president/policy” or "the rate of growth of inflation increased with ____ "

If you are arguing instead that the claim "african americans have done worse than other demographics under ____ " well then it may be a tad ambiguous but I likely agree with you for the reasons you stated above: as a demographic african americans have largely occupied the low end of the socio-economic continuum and always have, or nearly so.

However, movement of a demographic relative to other demographics OR relative to their past performance/progress is completely measureable although obviously it is more ambiguous (being part of the sociological fielf) than say measuring a lab experiment.