|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:36:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gizmoturner on Apr 12, 2009 17:37:08 GMT -5
Betcha Cowboy is a government clerk/bureaucrat somewhere. Moderately bright guy who likes to rage against the government/taxes etc., all while taking a paycheck from the taxpayers and too impotent to work in private industry and/or be successful by his own definition. It is so much easier to blame everyone else: big government, blacks, Jews, Obama, liberals, ex-wife (wives) whatever, rather than take responsibility for his own self-perceived failings. Sorry Cowboy, anyone who cites Glen Beck as a source is a well....hmmm words are just failing me about citing Beck. GLEN BECK?!
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -5
Gizmo, nice try, but I've been in business since I was 26 years old. I own my own cattle outfit that has been in the family for three generations now, and I've never had to rely on the government for any kind of support. I am what you would call a self-reliant person; ever hear of the concept?
|
|
|
Post by gizmoturner on Apr 12, 2009 17:49:42 GMT -5
Cowboy! 26 and INHERITED your gig! Really self-reliant there buckaroo.
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:51:18 GMT -5
Do you have any idea how hard my family works to support this cattle ranch, gizmo? I didn't "inherit" anything; I was busting my slacks on the range since the time I was old enough to walk.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 12, 2009 17:53:07 GMT -5
... And yet, Obama writes in his memoirs about how he was ashamed of his white heritage as a boy and how he chose to identify with his black heritage and shun white culture. Go figure. Maybe you can give the quote. Becuase so far what I found was this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#Childhood_through_high_schoolYeah Obama also had issues growing up being multiracial (which is common for bi racial kids. But me thinks you are taking what he said out of context. It does. And it is true that slavery in Africa existed before Europeans went to Africa in any great number. However slavery in Africa, while still bad, is no where near the way it was at it's height. Again there's a reason for that..CAPITALISM. Supply and Demand. I'll try to make this explanation short and simple as I can for you. Africa was no different. And religion was not an issue because Muslims, Christians, Pagans, whatever..they all had no problem with slavery. African nations at the time had no prisons. Slavery was seen as a good way to get rid of criminals, prisoners of war and anyone he local government didn't want. The the slave traders in Africa noticed something. Europeans and then Americans were buying up slaves and suddenly there was real money to be made. And so slavers went out to increase the supply to meet this demand. So yes there was and still is slavery in Africa. But it grew to the massive institution it did because of Non-African demand for slaves. To claim that the slave trade was a "uniquely negro institution" when Europeans were a primary driving force behind much of it is both factually wrong and at least a little bit like "blame the victim" I can't help but notice you keep cherry picking, taking ONLY bits of pieces of things that only superficially support what you say (when you deign to provide any corroboration at all) while blithely ignoring context and facts that refute you. I have seen this among conservative posters all over and I still can't say I really understand WHY you all do this. It's not as if the rest of us wont' see through this. Indeed, many people enjoy blasting part a poorly made argument. And you only make yourself look prejudiced and poorly informed. So who exactly do you think you're convincing?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 18:00:47 GMT -5
"Conservative" has been redefined in recent years by the Bush administration and segments of the religious right. However, classical conservatism is simply small government, fiscally responsible politics, which are represented by many Libertarian and Constitutionalist candidates today. Actually, no. Classical liberals were the original free-marketeers. Conservatives wanted to keep the big (undemocratic) state they had accumulated, with all it's tarrifs and subsidies. Since when is it the government's job to be "innovative?" That's what the private sector and the free market are for. Like the internet you're writing this on? Then you like government innovation. "Banned" as "altogether unnecessary" - have you been reading Marx? We ban markets all the time. We banned the market on heroin, for instance. We banned the market on nuclear weapons. We banned the market on people, and we banned the labour market on children. We banned the market on stolen goods. We banned the market on government services like driver's licences, a ban that doesn't exist in South Africa. The reason we did this is because either those markets do something bad, or they are less efficient than having no market at all. And even free marketeers want to ban some markets. Give me a break. Socialism has never worked, and never will. What I described isn't socialism. All styles of economy ban some markets. But if you want to debate socialism, go ahead. On what basis do you argue that socialism has failed? I can show you just as many economists who will tell you flat out that Keynesian Economics (the economic worldview OBama subscribes to) is an utter failure that will only sink this country further into the hole of debt and poverty. I said no Chicago or Austrian school economists who don't know what the hell they're talking about. Debt isn't a bad thing in a recession. What the holy ****, man! Are you seriously referring to the Constitution of the United States as "an irrelevent non-legal document?" No, the Declaration of Independence, which you quoted from. It has lots of nice flowery writing, but not much else. The constitution doesn't say 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 18:26:38 GMT -5
I've never had to rely on the government for any kind of support. Have you ever driven on a public road? Is your product delivered on public roads?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 18:36:40 GMT -5
What the holy ****, man! Are you seriously referring to the Constitution of the United States as "an irrelevent non-legal document?" No, the Declaration of Independence, which you quoted from. It has lots of nice flowery writing, but not much else. The constitution doesn't say 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. For someone who supports the Constitution Party and believes in "a small, limited government whose powers are defined by a strict interpretation of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights," you'd think he's at least know what the Constitution IS (i.e. not the same thing as the Declaration of Independence).
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 18:46:07 GMT -5
I've never had to rely on the government for any kind of support. Says the guy over publicly funded telephone lines through the DARPA product the internet.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 19:06:25 GMT -5
$50 says you couldn't even read Obama's memoirs. And what exactly is "white" culture?
Yes, that is true. However, I still make a distinction between that type of slavery and chattel slavery, which crumbled in order for American capitalism to thrive.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 12, 2009 19:06:29 GMT -5
It's always cute when conservatives pretend they've never gotten any help from the Government.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 19:13:38 GMT -5
What socialist policies?
Why are we discussing socialism? I'm a socialist, but Obama isn't. Even if he said the phrase "redistribution of wealth", that isn't socialism. How does a three per cent tax increase on people making $250,000 or more socialism? Adam Smith of all people was in favor of progressive taxes:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Your attacks on socialism are nothing more than a red herring, and so are your idiotic race-baiting tactics.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 19:16:35 GMT -5
in⋅her⋅it1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business. 2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors. 3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors. 4. to succeed (a person) as heir. 5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes. Definitions are fun!
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 21:14:54 GMT -5
You guys probably have a point. Who needs public roads, anyway? I can build my own damn roads.
|
|