|
On January 07 2011 09:59 Question132 wrote:
i love the economics arguing. It is doubtful any1 in this thread is an economist or business major. Note: I'm not an economist. Both Hayek's policy (leave it alone it will fix itself) and Keynsian policy (socialism, throwing money at the problem) work. Each is different, they work in different ways. Different people like different shit, I personally prefer Hayek's laissez-fair approach, if someone is corrupt people will stop trading with them and thus they will become obsolete and if needed moderate government assistance to stop monopolies, trusts, etc. moreover, keynsian policy throws money @ the problem, creates social programs like medicare, medicaid, etc etc etc. The problem w/ socialism is that it maintains a lifestyle for forever basically which doesn't lead to any leaps in technology. I honestly don't get it, if you like socialism, move to canada or europe--if you like capitalism move to america. the decision isn't hard, but arguing on forums doesn't help.
I'm an Econ Major 
|
On January 07 2011 03:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 03:35 Scruffy wrote:On January 07 2011 03:12 darmousseh wrote:On January 07 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 07 2011 02:18 Scruffy wrote:On January 07 2011 02:01 Krigwin wrote:
Is anyone else a little bewildered and disarmed at how genuinely difficult it has become to tell nowadays if someone is a totally serious right-winger or an over-the-top transparent troll? Seriously, you just can't tell anymore. I imagine this must be even harder for the non-Americans who are not used to the brow-beating and mudslinging of American politics. Krigwin, I have told you this before I think, and it may be a little hard to swallow but.... believe it or not, there are people out in the world that think differently than you. I'm gonna give that a few minutes to sink in. I could easily call liberals "trolls", but its pointless, ignorant, and beside the point. Krigwin is right. Now, I'll explain you. When you have people who come and tell you that earth was created 6000 years ago, or that the problem of the most capitalist country in the world is that the state is too big and there is no place for business (lol, seriously?), or some racist bullcrap about afro-american who don't want to work (yeah, your post is very racist), it's very very hard to believe that they are serious and are not just trying to piss you off. Now, I know, people think differently. You see, I'm not a liberal, but I understand liberal thinking. It makes sense, although I have reasons not to share their ideas. That's why I always like talking with liberals. Republican ideas, in an other hand, just mostly don't make any sense at all. To us americans, socialism also doesn't make sense because the US prides itself on individualism and individual accomplishment. Collectivist thought is the #1 reason for the majority of the wars that have ever happened. No i'm not a conservative, i'm a libertarian, but just because you have absolutely no knowledge of american thought and philosophy, i'd thought i'd point it out to you. The democrat party here is more conservative than the most conservative party in europe btw. We have no nationalist party since nationalism is a dead idea. Republicans in general are pragmatists which is the problem. Libertarians want real limited government and no foreign intervention and free trade. Republicans simply represent a people who are disillusioned with government and want to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that their grandparents told them about, but don't believe that it is possible so that make concessions such as having a huge army and moderately regulating a central bank. The very small percentage of republicans who are fundamentalist christians that believe in literal 6 day creation make up probably 2-5% of the republican party, however, they are the most vocal and the media really likes to talk about them. Imagine if American's thought that all french people were anarchists, it's basically the same as how french people think of conservative americans. This man spits the truth. I am conservative and libertarian. I see the Republican party as a vehicle to get fresh ideas into government (third parties hardly ever win). Idk, I wish more people would go independent and win, that way labels aren't used as much. Is it wrong for me to want my country to succeed? I don't think what Obama is/was doing has worked, and I am pretty sure it won't work. You guys make me facepalm so much my face hurts. Do you realize that the State is the representation of public interest? Do you realize that you are enslaved not by an evil administration but by your companies, your multinational and your oligarchy of shareholders? Do you realize that your food industry, your media industry, your weapon industry, your carceral industry, your pharmaceutic industry, every single industry fucks you in the ass day after day after day after day, because of how ridiculously powerful corporations are nowaday? And you complain about your powerless adminsitration because it wants to give the chance to people who can't pay their insurance to get their cancer cured. I'm so happy not to live in America, I would kill myself;
I don't blame you, I'm getting the fuck outta here as soon as possible. How easy is it to obtain a French student visa? :p
|
for me that easy in broken english .
realy dont read if you feal depressed or bad , im not saying anything new .
osama = for the poor people and midle class = my pick since im here .
republic or anything else = for people who got money , to much money. they need more mineral .
that should be easy like that but you add something :
MEDIA ( mass power ) : who control media ? = rich = osama bad .
that kinda sad but if you control media right now ... you control the world .
you want up the price for something ? say in the new for 2 week that more rare
or for some reason the thing you want higher = some bad shit have happen , we need up the price , sorry man we got so much less , you gotta pay higher
so you use media for give the reason ( people need reason for accept crazy shit like that )
now you up the price
maybe that the reason osama got a very bad image in media right now ?
but what i dont understand = they are way more poor people that rich , why we got less power ?!
easy fix :
everyone who got more that XXXXXXXX give 15 % of the money he got or you pay more tax .
that just fucking crazy that everything work the other way : people who got less pay more , and people who got more pay less , where the logic here ?
you got less = you give less .
you got more = you give more .
when many people got so much money that they dont event know what to do using it and probably cant use it all in all their life ... and next to you someone starving to dead.....
not gotta talk about war and the money they put here.... or im realy going to be banned haha .
for resume what happen : kill the guy starving and get more mineral .
what should happen : open the trade window and give some mineral .
going back play sc2 i guess everything better here and we got the trade window ingame for 2vs2 .
|
On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there...
Bahahaha. I weep for thee.
|
On January 07 2011 10:46 stafu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 11:24 t3hwUn wrote:
And to get back on topic +1 for no more obama socialist policies. If I wanted to live in Europe I'd move there... Bahahaha. I weep for thee.
that because he black ? or you got alot of money ?
if that any other reason im fealing sorry for you .
but yeah get back on topic , cya
edit : i still feal bad for you if that any of the 2 too .
|
On January 07 2011 09:51 jungsu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:47 Froadac wrote:On January 07 2011 09:44 jungsu wrote:
I find myself agreeing with the French people in almost every TL thread, and I feel bad when they have to argue us in the US about common sense issues.
You have to regulate capitalism or it ends in revolution between the very rich and the very poor. Taxes are a part of regulation. You have to penalize the very rich. What's so hard to understand about that?
I always hear republicans talk about lowering taxes, while democrats talk about helping people.
I have not heard one new project idea from the republican side after watching many news clips and coverage on cspan. Do you penalize the rich because they are INHERENTLY BAD EVIL PEOPLE? LIke Warren Buffet? Who is evil? Totally separately I'm sorry I've created the thread. Now is some giant cesspool of political accusations. The logical end of your thinking is a dictatorship. You penalize the rich because human nature is imperfect and greedy, and no one person, or small subset of persons, should be allowed too much power.
Don't get power. It'll get taken by the government.
And even if you legitimately believe that, the reason "What's so hard to understand about that" makes no sense. What if you start a business, are a nice person, and donate to charity, and get your ass taxed off. Would you feel like its fair?
|
On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day.
You have been contradicted about 100 times in this thread by myself and others, and each time you refuse to defend your arguments. You just move on to the next ridiculous assertion every time that you're unable to defend yourself. That coupled with the racism you spouted earlier is why people suspect you of trolling:
Scruffy wrote:
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess.
That is racism, plain and simple.
|
On January 07 2011 11:34 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day. You have been contradicted about 100 times in this thread by myself and others, and each time you refuse to defend your arguments. You just move on to the next ridiculous assertion every time that you're unable to defend yourself. That coupled with the racism you spouted earlier is why people suspect you of trolling: Show nested quote +Scruffy wrote:
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess. That is racism, plain and simple.
True and its sad the democrats are using it.
|
Why are we debating socialism!!??
This is opposite of what the thread is about. Republicans are making spending standards much more lax and making it much more difficult to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. What about that is "small government"? Why are people talking about socialism and such when very clearly, the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones in this case?
This is ridiculous.
moreover, keynsian policy throws money @ the problem, creates social programs like medicare, medicaid, etc etc etc. The problem w/ socialism is that it maintains a lifestyle for forever basically which doesn't lead to any leaps in technology. I honestly don't get it, if you like socialism, move to canada or europe--if you like capitalism move to america. the decision isn't hard, but arguing on forums doesn't help.
This is a little silly to say. America has medicare, medicaid etc. etc. Doesn't that directly imply that America is socialist by what you're saying? America is not a completely capitalist country, because that tends to suck.
|
On January 07 2011 11:34 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day. You have been contradicted about 100 times in this thread by myself and others, and each time you refuse to defend your arguments. You just move on to the next ridiculous assertion every time that you're unable to defend yourself. That coupled with the racism you spouted earlier is why people suspect you of trolling: Show nested quote +Scruffy wrote:
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess. That is racism, plain and simple.
Ok. I know I said I would stay out of this but this is enraging. That is NOT racism. That is actually how the democratic party works. Talk to blacks. Seriously. You find one of two views. Most blacks openly support democrats cause other blacks do it, or because they are promised a lot of shit that helps them get more for less (affirmative action) and because historically the democrats have actually pushed civil rights as their agenda and done some good.
There is also the small subset of blacks who will tell you exactly what Scruffy posted. They're very very very angry with the black community because blacks don't accept responsibility for their shortcomings, and blame things on racism, oppression by the white man, and discrimination. Yes, once in a blue moon they're right, but so is everyone from any group. Things like affirmative action and "hate crimes" are a horrible pandering to a people who, quite honestly, are just as capable of achieving what everyone else does. We're basically saying "it's ok to underperform, you're black" or "you're black so we'll protect you because you need it more than everyone else." THAT is true racism.
So when people like you call out facts that might be difficult to swallow as racist, you're only hurting the group you're sheltering, and you look ignorant too.
|
On January 07 2011 11:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are we debating socialism!!??
This is opposite of what the thread is about. Republicans are making spending standards much more lax and making it much more difficult to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. What about that is "small government"? Why are people talking about socialism and such when very clearly, the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones in this case?
This is ridiculous.
Socialism is the issue because the Republicans Are retaining limits on increased Spending (although they are avoiding Cutting Spending... since that always annoys someone more than not increasing spending)
I agree what they are doing is mostly a bid for power and generally financially irresponsible.
But the issue is that they are doing it in a way that it still hinders increasing government involvement in the economy. (ie socialism)
|
What is wrong with socialism in any form? Isn't USA the land of the free? Can't an elected president be socialist freely?
I used to work for Anthem Blue Cross & Blue shield and i can't understand why you reject socialized medicine. 70% of the Medical Claims get rejected because of abusive behaviour on Anthem's behalf. 20% are properly rejected, and 10% are rejected because the patient tryied to abuse the coverage in a way( I remember this TN guy that wanted a hydraulic cock covered by the healthcare company).
Yes, im from Argentina and a third world country actually denies your health care coverage. LOL.
I have denied Heart Transplants, MRIs , CAT SCANS ETCETCETC that the company billed the patient (An MRI was billed like 10 thousand dollars)
|
On January 07 2011 11:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Ok. I know I said I would stay out of this but this is enraging. That is NOT racism. That is actually how the democratic party works. Talk to blacks. Seriously. You find one of two views. Most blacks openly support democrats cause other blacks do it, or because they are promised a lot of shit that helps them get more for less (affirmative action) and because historically the democrats have actually pushed civil rights as their agenda and done some good.
If you could present some significant supporting evidence other than "Talk to blacks" it would help the strength of your argument significantly. As it is now it sounds like an overly generalized assertion that blankets all of the African American community into a very narrow ideology which I am not sure is correct. I am certain that the element you have outlined does exist to some extent, but I am not sure that it applies to most of the African American community.
That being said I would appreciate if people could try to keep the discussion a little more civil. There is absolutely no need to ruin the potential for a decent political discussion over personal egos.
|
On January 07 2011 12:22 shreepy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 11:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Ok. I know I said I would stay out of this but this is enraging. That is NOT racism. That is actually how the democratic party works. Talk to blacks. Seriously. You find one of two views. Most blacks openly support democrats cause other blacks do it, or because they are promised a lot of shit that helps them get more for less (affirmative action) and because historically the democrats have actually pushed civil rights as their agenda and done some good.
If you could present some significant supporting evidence other than "Talk to blacks" it would help the strength of your argument significantly. As it is now it sounds like an overly generalized assertion that blankets all of the African American community into a very narrow ideology which I am not sure is correct. I am certain that the element you have outlined does exist to some extent, but I am not sure that it applies to most of the African American community. That being said I would appreciate if people could try to keep the discussion a little more civil. There is absolutely no need to ruin the potential for a decent political discussion over personal egos.
Blacks vote about 90% democrat since... FDR I think. Certainly in recent years. Why else would they continually vote 1 way for 80 years in such strong numbers? Sure, until the 1980s there was a very good reason to vote democrat. What about the last 30 years?
Talking to blacks is actually the best way to learn. I have black friends, worked with black people, and have seen the effects of our policies on blacks in college. Since when did talking to people stop being the best way to get to know them?
|
Here is a pretty graph showing the relationship between US Gross Debt and presidential terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.png
It is interesting that Eisenhower and Nixon are the only republicans to have reduced debt during their office.
While the Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all managed to reduce debt levels.
In fact Obama is the only Democrat in the last 50 years who has seen an increase in debt during his term.
It's pretty obvious that modern Republicans are not fiscally responsible at all.
|
On January 07 2011 12:27 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Blacks vote about 90% democrat since... FDR I think. Certainly in recent years. Why else would they continually vote 1 way for 80 years in such strong numbers? Sure, until the 1980s there was a very good reason to vote democrat. What about the last 30 years?
Talking to blacks is actually the best way to learn. I have black friends, worked with black people, and have seen the effects of our policies on blacks in college. Since when did talking to people stop being the best way to get to know them?
Simply talking to black people in your day to day life does not necessarily give you complete mastery over the ideology of the entire race. Statistics across the entire populace would be much, much stronger since it would encompass a lot more of the population than the blacks you personally interact with. You may know some blacks quite well, but that does not mean that you know the entire black community quite well.
I would wager that the African Community votes for Democrats more so for historical reasons rather than the other reasons you stipulated, but again it is just assertion. As I said I am uncertain and if you or anyone in this thread for that matter has more significant evidence I would be very much interested.
|
On January 07 2011 12:29 DTrain wrote:Here is a pretty graph showing the relationship between US Gross Debt and presidential terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.pngIt is interesting that Eisenhower and Nixon are the only republicans to have reduced debt during their office. While the Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all managed to reduce debt levels. In fact Obama is the only Democrat in the last 50 years who has seen an increase in debt during his term. It's pretty obvious that modern Republicans are not fiscally responsible at all.
No its obvious Modern Republican Presidents aren't fiscally responsible...(and that is in the Constitution... Presidents are not Fiscally responsible) since they don't control the budget although they do influence it
Do do that properly you would have to examine
Republican Presidents w Republican Congress
Democratic Presidents w Democratic Congress
Republican Presidents w Democratic Congress
Democratic Presidents w Republican Congress
and compare those 4...
or just compare it by Congresses
Republican House + Democratic Senate (now)
etc.
essentially you have 8 possible combinations
And then you also have to compare policies put in by one that increase in later administrations/Congresses
|
On January 07 2011 12:29 DTrain wrote:Here is a pretty graph showing the relationship between US Gross Debt and presidential terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.pngIt is interesting that Eisenhower and Nixon are the only republicans to have reduced debt during their office. While the Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all managed to reduce debt levels. In fact Obama is the only Democrat in the last 50 years who has seen an increase in debt during his term. It's pretty obvious that modern Republicans are not fiscally responsible at all.
Only if you don't know how to interpret statistics.
Lets put this in perspective:
Reagan raised the national debt as part of an economic war against the USSR, eventually leading to its collapse. Had he not done what he did, the USSR probably would still be around today.
The debt decrease for Clinton actually only started in around '94, when the congress was controlled by republicans.
Likewise, the greatest periods of debt increase for Bush II were under a democrat controlled congress.
Bush I and Bush II both were involved in foreign conflicts.
Truman's debt decrease is a natural cause of the gov't returning from total war mode.
There's so much stuff that you can draw from a graph if you don't know context. Context shows that your assumptions are incorrect.
Also, the President has minimal control over national debt, since congress is responsible for the budget. The President just has to approve it, and often times it's more important to approve a bad budget than not have one at all, which could halt the Federal gov't entirely.
|
On January 07 2011 11:13 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 09:51 jungsu wrote:On January 07 2011 09:47 Froadac wrote:On January 07 2011 09:44 jungsu wrote:
I find myself agreeing with the French people in almost every TL thread, and I feel bad when they have to argue us in the US about common sense issues.
You have to regulate capitalism or it ends in revolution between the very rich and the very poor. Taxes are a part of regulation. You have to penalize the very rich. What's so hard to understand about that?
I always hear republicans talk about lowering taxes, while democrats talk about helping people.
I have not heard one new project idea from the republican side after watching many news clips and coverage on cspan. Do you penalize the rich because they are INHERENTLY BAD EVIL PEOPLE? LIke Warren Buffet? Who is evil? Totally separately I'm sorry I've created the thread. Now is some giant cesspool of political accusations. The logical end of your thinking is a dictatorship. You penalize the rich because human nature is imperfect and greedy, and no one person, or small subset of persons, should be allowed too much power. Don't get power. It'll get taken by the government. And even if you legitimately believe that, the reason "What's so hard to understand about that" makes no sense. What if you start a business, are a nice person, and donate to charity, and get your ass taxed off. Would you feel like its fair?
The situation doesn't matter. If you have more money you get taxed proportionally more.
My point is that demonizing taxes doesn't help us in the end.
|
On January 07 2011 11:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 11:34 Lefnui wrote:On January 07 2011 08:34 Scruffy wrote:On January 07 2011 08:24 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 06:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Yah I'm done in this topic too. I think we've all presented enough reasonable arguments that anyone who continues to post that kind of garbage is wasting our time.
It's one thing to look at data and interpret wrongly/differently. It's another thing to spew crap across the room at mach 2 because they can't contain their bullshit. When people make claims like that without evidence the best thing to do is ignore it, and that's what I'm going to do. Trying not to be overly offensive. But from our debate in the other thread I have got the impression that you are complaining about practically what you did to the extreme. Repeating your statements over and over again without presenting the fact you base them on, does not make them more right, even if it may to you (social psychology tells us that continuous exposure to objects makes us like them more, see "mere exposure effect"). May I suggest that wherever you carry out your debates in the future, you try reasoning based on facts and open-mindedly discussing facts instead of opinions? I promise that will be a whole new experience where you can actually reason consensus. Also: + Show Spoiler +Did we just kill two trolls in one strike? JK :p The problem is you can present all the facts you want, but people will still call you an "idiot" or "troll", not because you are acting like one, but because you have a different ideology than them. Just talking from my experience in the general forum. My "fact" may be an "opinion" to you (just because you don't agree with it) and vice-versa. But we could play this game all day. You have been contradicted about 100 times in this thread by myself and others, and each time you refuse to defend your arguments. You just move on to the next ridiculous assertion every time that you're unable to defend yourself. That coupled with the racism you spouted earlier is why people suspect you of trolling: Scruffy wrote:
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess. That is racism, plain and simple. Ok. I know I said I would stay out of this but this is enraging. That is NOT racism. That is actually how the democratic party works. Talk to blacks. Seriously. You find one of two views. Most blacks openly support democrats cause other blacks do it, or because they are promised a lot of shit that helps them get more for less (affirmative action) and because historically the democrats have actually pushed civil rights as their agenda and done some good.
More blatant racism. This is just pathetic, I feel like I'm on Stormfront.
Both of you have now asserted, without a scrap of evidence beyond "some black guy said so", that black people in general only vote based on ignorance and immorality. That they vote for Democrats merely because other black people do and because they want to sit around lazily while collecting cash. Those are horrible, racist generalizations which have no basis in reality.
As I explained to 'Scruffy', there are a number of reasons for why black people vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and those reasons are not based in stupidity and laziness. The most clear, significant reason is the southern strategy. With that approach Republicans ceded over any chance of ever receiving black support. That was a calculated and conscious decision, they understood very well what they were sacrificing. But they believed that the white southern voters they would receive in turn would far outweigh the amount of black voters lost, and they were absolutely right. Kevin Phillips, a Nixon political strategist, best outlines the strategy here:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats"
There is also the small subset of blacks who will tell you exactly what Scruffy posted. They're very very very angry with the black community because blacks don't accept responsibility for their shortcomings, and blame things on racism, oppression by the white man, and discrimination. Yes, once in a blue moon they're right, but so is everyone from any group. Things like affirmative action and "hate crimes" are a horrible pandering to a people who, quite honestly, are just as capable of achieving what everyone else does. We're basically saying "it's ok to underperform, you're black" or "you're black so we'll protect you because you need it more than everyone else." THAT is true racism.
I don't know what I prefer, the more vague racism as shown above or the more blatant forms. At least the more blatant forms are honest, although more audacious. I really don't know how you expect me to respond to these unfounded allegations against black people. I would be shocked if this nonsense didn't originally come from Limbaugh.
So when people like you call out facts that might be difficult to swallow as racist, you're only hurting the group you're sheltering, and you look ignorant too.
Best use of "sheltering" ever. It's quite revealing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
