Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:your opinions are a bizarre pastiche of all the worst elements of left-wing statist mentality.

Yet a minute ago you didn't know what they were.

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:your opinions are a bizarre pastiche of all the worst elements of left-wing statist mentality.

Yet a minute ago you didn't know what they were.

They do seem to continuosuly mutate in function of the number of rebuttals posted concerning them.

Race should being irrelevant in the electoral college

Leftwing statist mentality my ass...

Statists are closer to the top, FYI.

The world, as it seems you people have difficulty comprehending, does not revolve around the US.

Besides, that test is idiotic. It dissociates political and economic freedom, which, as most political scientists will tell you, is just daft. You may wish to read "Capitalism and Freedom" in conjunction with that, professor Friedman explains that misconception quite adequately, I find.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Besides, that test is idiotic. It dissociates political and economic freedom, which, as most political scientists will tell you, is just daft. You may wish to read "Capitalism and Freedom" in conjunction with that, professor Friedman explains that misconception quite adequately, I find.

I think you're beginning to worship Friedman on a rather unsettling level.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Besides, that test is idiotic. It dissociates political and economic freedom, which, as most political scientists will tell you, is just daft. You may wish to read "Capitalism and Freedom" in conjunction with that, professor Friedman explains that misconception quite adequately, I find.

I think you're beginning to worship Friedman on a rather unsettling level.

Friedman...the greatest economist since Adam Smith.

sweet christ! 50 cent supports hillary? that makes all the difference...

mr. incrediball wrote:sweet christ! 50 cent supports hillary? that makes all the difference...

Yeah....I was supporting Obama. But now that fiddy says hilary should be president I am going to campaign for her.

Unless fiddy announces he's is going to run for president.

Snorri1234 wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:sweet christ! 50 cent supports hillary? that makes all the difference...

Yeah....I was supporting Obama. But now that fiddy says hilary should be president I am going to campaign for her.

Unless fiddy announces he's is going to run for president.

that would be awesomely funny.

Snorri1234 wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:sweet christ! 50 cent supports hillary? that makes all the difference...

Yeah....I was supporting Obama. But now that fiddy says hilary should be president I am going to campaign for her.

Unless fiddy announces he's is going to run for president.

"Bitches, Hos, you gots to go."

luns101 wrote:By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

THANKS

The Dems are having a little Orgy over whether they are going to elect the first Black person or the first Woman... and are forgetting this one little detail.

I dislike Hillary.

Obama scares me... and no, not because he is Black. Partially he's scarely because he's a socialist... mostly because he is so naive foreign-policy-wise that I think he might truly be the only person capable of doing MORE damage to the US than Bush.

got tonkaed wrote:consider a number of conservative stances related to things like national security, immigration, education, welfare, the size of gov. Sober minded analysts on every side of the coin have often argued that race is an element in many of these things, albeit to varying degrees. If we were to discuss stances that tend to be more favorable to many differnet groups of minorites (with important caveats and exceptions of course) liberals will tend to have stances that favor their interests more (for a variety of reasons - my own personal ones probably have to do with the way i have been educated and subsequently my class based understanding of society) whereas conservatives tend to favor their own self interest more, and tend to view societal good as a secondary concern, or as something that occurs if everyone does their own job (a simple example being trickle down economics).

So how does this make conservatives more racist?

I just don't see it man.

Furthermore... if for example you look at the Welfare system in the US... I could argue that a system that encourages people to go out and work and better themselves is LESS racist than a system that coddles people on the system and assumes they can't help themselves.

jimboston wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:consider a number of conservative stances related to things like national security, immigration, education, welfare, the size of gov. Sober minded analysts on every side of the coin have often argued that race is an element in many of these things, albeit to varying degrees. If we were to discuss stances that tend to be more favorable to many differnet groups of minorites (with important caveats and exceptions of course) liberals will tend to have stances that favor their interests more (for a variety of reasons - my own personal ones probably have to do with the way i have been educated and subsequently my class based understanding of society) whereas conservatives tend to favor their own self interest more, and tend to view societal good as a secondary concern, or as something that occurs if everyone does their own job (a simple example being trickle down economics).

So how does this make conservatives more racist?

I just don't see it man.

Furthermore... if for example you look at the Welfare system in the US... I could argue that a system that encourages people to go out and work and better themselves is LESS racist than a system that coddles people on the system and assumes they can't help themselves.

Sure you could argue that, and everyone would laugh at you for missing the point.

jimboston wrote:The Dems are having a little Orgy over whether they are going to elect the first Black person or the first Woman... and are forgetting this one little detail.

I dislike Hillary.

What and oversight on their part... How could they have forgotten to consult you?

Guiscard wrote:

jimboston wrote:The Dems are having a little Orgy over whether they are going to elect the first Black person or the first Woman... and are forgetting this one little detail.

I dislike Hillary.

What and oversight on their part... How could they have forgotten to consult you?

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT....

and/or I typed it wrong... the one little point I was referring to was that fact that we should based decisions on the person's capabilities. Not on his or her color or sex.

Though in jimworld I do think i towuld be nice if people consulted with me on these decisions.

jimboston wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:consider a number of conservative stances related to things like national security, immigration, education, welfare, the size of gov. Sober minded analysts on every side of the coin have often argued that race is an element in many of these things, albeit to varying degrees. If we were to discuss stances that tend to be more favorable to many differnet groups of minorites (with important caveats and exceptions of course) liberals will tend to have stances that favor their interests more (for a variety of reasons - my own personal ones probably have to do with the way i have been educated and subsequently my class based understanding of society) whereas conservatives tend to favor their own self interest more, and tend to view societal good as a secondary concern, or as something that occurs if everyone does their own job (a simple example being trickle down economics).

So how does this make conservatives more racist?

I just don't see it man.

Furthermore... if for example you look at the Welfare system in the US... I could argue that a system that encourages people to go out and work and better themselves is LESS racist than a system that coddles people on the system and assumes they can't help themselves.

it would seem the argument was related to notions that were discussed in the beginning there which i think still stand up fairly well. The latter part about trickling down is ideological stances which i think can inform the viewpoint.

When you hold views that often have antagonistic stances affecting particular minority groups, it seems fair to question where those stances come from. Most people do not think in a vacuum so it seems possible to suggest that in some cases theres something there.

Welfare really is not a system that coddles people. We really do not a lot of things in the welfare system that allow people to embetter their situation. Dont get me wrong, i think welfare can serve one of two purposes, it can provide a safety net or it can be a stopping point in a bouncing back process for people who are working to get them back on track. I have no problem with either one of those options, but very rarely can it work out to be both. Since we arent doing either really well right now, i think it can still be brought into question.

jimboston wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

jimboston wrote:The Dems are having a little Orgy over whether they are going to elect the first Black person or the first Woman... and are forgetting this one little detail.

I dislike Hillary.

What and oversight on their part... How could they have forgotten to consult you?

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT....

and/or I typed it wrong... the one little point I was referring to was that fact that we should based decisions on the person's capabilities. Not on his or her color or sex.

Though in jimworld I do think i towuld be nice if people consulted with me on these decisions.

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, the context being that it was a joke.

I'm still waiting to see btownmeggy respond to that awesome response (which I didn't, sadly, write).

Guiscard wrote:
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, the context being that it was a joke.

Sorry... I should have thicker skin and see your sarcasm.

I have not been in IK long and have not seen/read a lot of your posts... so I don't "know" you that well yet.

got tonkaed wrote:When you hold views that often have antagonistic stances affecting particular minority groups, it seems fair to question where those stances come from. Most people do not think in a vacuum so it seems possible to suggest that in some cases theres something there.

Welfare really is not a system that coddles people.

You first point is fair. It is OK to question where those stances come from. Though just because someone might think a particular view comes from some racist underpining does not make it so.

I do work that puts me in a position of watching the flow of money by our Gov't in some areas. One of these is into the Welfare system. It is this experience that makes me dislike welfare... not the idea of the system... but the implementation of it as it currently exists. Some my Conservative viewpoint in this regards is based on knowledge and experience with public waste. NOT on race.

The point being... you don't and can't see how a person develops their views. So you can't assume that they are based on factors that (though might be ancillairy) are not part of that person's decision making process.

Your 2nd point... about the Welfare system NOT coddling people. Is just wrong. It does that... and it encourages people to get into it... and not get out of it.

Tonkaed: name a single welfare program that acheived the aims it set out to.

he's black? who cares

Napoleon Ier wrote:Tonkaed: name a single welfare program that acheived the aims it set out to.

Hey that's not fair. We should be judged on the intent of the programs we've started - not the results. No I get your point though. I'll give this one a shot, how about when we funded Jonas Salk getting the polio vaccine?

Do I at least get an A for effort

im not going to lie i thought i posted in here earlier....

while i think a lot of the current programs arent hitting the mark as far as effectiveness, i think its worth questioning what we are defining as success. it would help at least shape the discussion.

However there are some programs, like foodstamps for instance which i think have done pretty well all things considered. This isnt to say i dont think other programs havent been effective, because i think they have mostly been effective to a degree.

For those who want to do some reading here is an article that i think brings up some relevant things to discuss welfare and waste and government policy and the like. I think a lot of the reforms that have been made to tighten the belt so to speak, have made welfare far less effective than it could be.

Certainly all welfare is likely to serve one of two categories, to provide a safety net or to be a stopping point on the way back to work...its difficult to try and blend the two together.

Anyway heres the article, its not that long, it just has a number things attached at the end.

http://www.ukcpr.org/Publications/FB_2003.pdf