Think about this...
LOL The socialists here will inform you that capitalism is looting, plundering and enslaving fellow men. Especially the "enslaving" part!
Oh I know they will say it is exactly what is described. Amazingly predictable....
Who do you work for? Is it some greedy capitalistic company?
Yes. A small one owner electrical company with around 10 employees (it varies with construction activity).
He "earns" as much as 10X his other employees, sometimes even more. That he has perhaps a million dollars tied up in equipment, tools, operating cash, etc. is immaterial. That he spends 10-12 hours per day in the office is immaterial. That he provides space on his farm for storage of tools, materials, etc. is immaterial.
He isn't on the job pulling wire with the rest of us and should not receive compensation. He isn't "working", just sitting in his chair bidding jobs, writing our payroll checks, verifying legal requirements, paying bills, finding cheap parts on sale so he can get filthy rich. And when I'm home eating dinner he finally locks up the office and goes out back to feed the cows that he will then sell to his downtrodden employes for 2/3 of what they will pay in the store! He even built a new home this year (doing much of the work himself) and it's 10% bigger than mine!
Not "working" at all. Just disgusting.How do the 10 of you restrain yourselves from revolting?
But that's hardly capitalism at all, is it?
Now if he was earning 200 times what you were, doing it all on borrowed money,and never having any hands on contact with the company wouldn't that be a different matter?
Walter Williams? This is the same guy that spoke on the rightwing radio circuits saying that slavery was a small price for Black folks to pay for the privilege of living in the greatest country on earth. White folks enjoyed the priviilege without having to go through that. He is just an "Uncle Tom"
Capitalism is fine with me and much of the left, provided sufficient retraint and regulatory oversight is a part of it. So, I guess the issue is just how much restraint and regulatory oversight is too much or too little?What he actually said:
"Hubbard's observation reminded me of my 1972 job interview at the University of Massachusetts. During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery. My response was that slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States. Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors. I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but that the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it.
The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today's American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have. I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn't answer, but an answer other than slavery would have been sheer idiocy. I attempted to assuage the professor's and his colleagues' shock by explaining to them that to morally condemn a practice such as slavery does not require one to also deny its effects."
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterew … page/full/
I agree with him, I think capitalism was a far superior system to the feudal one it replaced, then capitalism itself began to be replaced by a better system.
Obviously that is not the only way people made money before capitalism and enslavement continued long after it.Most Americans, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, support capitalism. The only issues are how much regulation is required to keep the public from being screwed by Wall Street banksters, health insurance companies, poisoned by drug companies and oil and coal companies which are polluting for profit. Sensible, cost effective regulation is not Socialism.
CAPITALISM is everything but the service of men. It plunders Africa, Asia (the middle east), it enslaves people by giving them dimes in change of their sweat... Capitalism serves capital and that's it. If you think the contrary then you understood nothing in economics.
What is so wrong about working hard and succeeding? Why does the left so despise rugged individualism and character? Why do they despise those who earned their wealth? And why do they feel empathy for the lazy and slothful?
I worked with those on the government dole back in my liberal days, and I can tell you that 9 out of 10 are just lazy, good for nothing, freeloaders who produce nothing but children that we end up paying for. We could save 90% of that money by making them go to work like everybody else.Actually they vote for a living....that's their work.
Rugged individualists aren't very controllable, and that's a problem for big government. People that are capable of taking care of themselves just don't accept being controlled very well.
And they are less likely to vote for liberals.....
And you are spot on.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul.Probably, and that's an even bigger problem! Gotta get rid of individualists - people that don't need or want a nanny - they're just always throwing monkey wrenches into the fine workings of a liberal society with their stupid claims that they're adults and don't need Papa Washington any more.
--> unfortunately, We must now fight the push toward socialism which is occurring from the radical left, the media, and our own President...which is truly surprising! Is socialism really the Hope and Change we wanted? (He left it undefined for a reason.) No, we did not consciously want a change in our system, but Barack Obama, George Soros, and those with the puppet and purse strings definitely do... and have stepped up their efforts! It is becoming clear as daylight.
During America's Golden ages we were happy. We had freedom, prosperity and scientific advancements. Now, all this is threatened and we are sorta stumped. But, posting words of wisdom like these by Walter E Williams is a great way for us who are still living happy lives (and are not really in the mood to fight at all)
to resist
all this socialism nonsense."Is socialism really the Hope and Change we wanted?"
That's why Obama never defined 'hope and change'. He sold gullible voters on an undefined slogan, and those of us who wanted to know what he meant by 'hope and change' were ignored.
Barack Hussein Obama is a staunch believer in big government enforcing economic and social 'justice', which basically means bringing all of us down to an equal level of misery.
That is why Rush Limbaugh famously hoped that Obama would fail. So do I, and so should all loyal Americans.When you hear a liberal say something derogatory about a conservative black, either make them cite their source or just prove them wrong
BTW Credence, calling a black man an "Uncle Tom" is a racist slur, so you might want to edit that out of your reply before someone turns you in.
That is not true, but if you want to otherwise delete the comment for political reasons I can't stop you. But it does says a great deal about your side in regards to receiving dissenting viewpoints. Never heard this,about the term "Uncle Tom" I will need to have this verified from on high
Credence,
You tried to diminish Dr. Williams by falsely quoting him. There goes your credibility.I have the gist of what he said correct. Dr. Williams viewpoint is only received well in rightwing circles, reading your excerpt did not change my basic opinion of what he is saying and who he is apologizing for.... Sorry
But isn't falsely quoting other people a common trait with some on these forums?
As somebody or other said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone?"Walter Williams is an African American libertarian economist in the same or similar vein as Thomas Sowell. Many African Americans consider both of them to be Uncle Toms.
Dr. Williams was pointing out the silver lining in the cloud of slavery, and he was not the only one. Richard Prior visited Africa and was appalled at what he found. He remarked that he was lucky to have been born in the US, in spite the way it came to be.
Slavery in America was a European import, just like everything else, and it took the Constitution and the the American sense of freedom and fair play to finally get rid of it. Thousands of white men died for that principle and to free the slaves. The rest of the world followed suit.
Slavery certainly did not begin in America, but it died here once and for all. America should get some well deserved credit for that.Will, I do give America credit for ending the institution of slavery, culminating with the Civll War. But, Britain has banned slavery in the country and within its possessions a few decades before the Civil War, so the die had already been cast. The institution only remained in large part in Latin America.
The problems one finds in Africa today, could be attributed to some degree to Colonialism and the subsequent exploitation of this continent over centuries. What did we avoid with the American Revolution "no taxation without representation"?
We are all fortuante to be here rather than Africa, the Middle East, Russia and the list goes on. But the same gratitude should be held by Anglos that had the opportunity to immigrate here as free men with all the advantages that comes with that.But slavery still exists in the UK!
There have been several cases recently of girls being kept as slaves, and what about the sex slave trade which is rampant right across the "civilised" world?
"We are all fortuante to be here rather than Africa, the Middle East, Russia and the list goes on. But the same gratitude should be held by Anglos that had the opportunity to immigrate here as free men with all the advantages that comes with that."
All Americans ought to be grateful for being born in the US, no matter what their race may be, and most of us are.
Back to the topic...contrary to socialist claims, and just as Dr. Williams says, capitalism is the system that made America great, while socialism is the system that has either destroyed every nation that has tried it or is in the process of destroying, as we see in Greece. Spain, Italy, and today, Cyprus.
What is selfish about working hard, taking risks, hiring people, and finally succeeding? Most wealthy people today were not wealthy when they started, so why punish success or be envious of it?I think that you will find that most of the left, myself included, accept Capitalism as the economic engine for the United States. While the left generally distrusts unfettered free markets more than conservatives, nobody is seriously talking about socialism as an alternative. We have no argument about the concepts of hard work, risk taking and the like. However, we live under a progressive tax code that taxes those with higher incomes at higher rates. We are concerned about exploitation of the haves not by the haves which is older than the pyramids but an issue which I think that Government or society at large has a duty to at least try to ameliorate for the safety and perpetuity of the 'system' if for nothing else.
Because the nature of Capitalism focuses on the me and I, we have to have advocates and regulatory structure that focuses on the we and us.Which would be fine if those countries were actually socialist and socialism had got them in that mess.
Note, the present problems in Cyprus are related to its (capitalist) banking system.while socialism is the system that has either destroyed every nation that has tried it or is in the process of destroying,
Yeah, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland and Luxembourg are in economic shambles right now--oh, wait, no they aren't! They're doing very well, have high literacy rates, and are viewed as having a higher overall prosperity for their citizens than the US.
Facts are troublesome things, aren't they?
Most wealthy people today were not wealthy when they started, so why punish success or be envious of it?[citation needed]What is the prosperity index? And indication of how much free money the govt. will give you?
The link on the site referenced is unusable and can't describe what the index measures.The link on the site referenced is unusable and can't describe what the index measures.
Yes it can, for those who can be bothered to move their mouse around a little bit.
Look at the arrow on the left of the page. Mousover it and it will expand a menu of links which send you to information on the Legatum Group and their annual prosperity index reports. Click "Methodology" and you'll get information on what the index measures, how it gathered data, etc.
What is the prosperity index? And indication of how much free money the govt. will give you?
Heh, that's funny.
No, click the wee camera icon at the top of the page (You know: the one that says "What Is The Prosperity Index?" right next to it?) and a short video will answer your question.The little camera is the one I clicked, but nothing happens. Javascript(0) is the address; obviously it won't work.
I do see the other one now, though - I'll look through it and see what it has to say.Huh. It plays on my computer, though it's a bit slow to load.
I checked it out and found it interesting and then checked some other sites. A lot of the data is gleamed from opinion polls which seems odd to me.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo … rosperity/"A lot" and "much of" are ambiguous words chosen to make the study seem like it relies more on soft data (like how satisfied people say they are with their educational opportunities) rather than hard data (like student-teacher ratio, enrollment rates, graduation rates, etc) for its conclusions.
It's always good to be skeptical of data, of course, but the "Objective Standard" has an agenda all its own: to promote Ayn Rand's morally bankrupt Objectivist philosophy, therefore, it's especially good to be skeptical of what it says.
"While the left generally distrusts unfettered free markets..."
A 'fettered' free market is an oxymoron.
To fetter is to chain or shackle, something that seems to be quite popular among controlling leftists, and it always diminishes productivity and living standards.
A market cannot be both free and shackled at the same time.Ok, lets put it this way. If I own a restaurant as a public accomodation, do I get to do what I want? You have to have a license and submit to periodic public health inspection. Your unfettered would mean that the consumer can make the determine that a restaurant is not clean and choose with their dollars where they eat. But the consumers sensibility can only apply to the surface and in areas that are in plain site, but if it being operated as a pig sty in the kitchen area that can prove dangerous, how can the consumer be aware?
Some objective entity has to check in the interests of public safety to see that these establishments are in fact operating up to code. I have a right to require that kind of control, to avoid people getting sick or worse. The proprietor is only interested in keeping the superficial part presentable to maintain business, doing anything else would increase costs for him. Capitalism has to operate within boundaries, that is my point. I don't want companies pouring toxic waste into my water supply to save itself money. Do you deny that there is a role to be played here?The libertarian logic is that you have the responsibility to inspect the restaurant for yourself to be sure that the kitchen is clean, and if it isn't, you don't eat there.
Of course, the same philosophy also insists that the restaurant owner doesn't have to let you look in the kitchen, 'cos, property rights. So we're back to square one.
The only way to be sure of your food in a libertarian paradise is to grow, harvest, and cook it yourself. Of course, that leaves precious little time to get anything else accomplished. This is why libertarianism, like communism, is a doomed philosophy: it's great in theory, but it just doesn't work in the real world where real people really live.
"Walter Williams is an African American libertarian economist in the same or similar vein as Thomas Sowell. Many African Americans consider both of them to be Uncle Toms."
And it's an extremely derogatory attack on a black man, making it a racist term, no matter who says it. That is the same position Richard Pryor took when he stopped using the 'n' word....it is both hateful and hurtful.Funny, isn't it? A word used to denote someone that cares more about people and truth than race is hateful and hurtful.
That is your opinion, Wildey, that is not taken that way be the overwhelming majority of people he was addressing these comments to. For a black man or any other man to deny the significance of slavery or subordinate it to jingoism is not acceptable.
Well, 40 years ago the term was used to indicate a black man (never heard it in reference to a woman) that went to school, owned a business, tried to educate black kids; anyone that tried to fit into society and become something or help his friends and neighbors "better" themselves. And of course whites that lived in black neighborhoods, no matter how affluent, and had black friends were "Po' white trash".
'Sigh' Sometimes I think it will never end. That there is something intrinsic to the human species that requires denigration of others in order to be happy.Not 40 years ago, but today as well. Your first sentence is correct, the term has been misused by members of our community jealous of others who aspire to do better. I know about that first hand and I hold contempt for such people.
The term has a specific meaning not be bandied about callously. Dr. williams, in such a prominent place in public discourse needs to be careful as to what he says and how it would be interpreted based upon earlier comments that I have already made.Truthfully - it sounds now much like it did then. Just a derogatory term mean to hurt but with little or no truth in it.
If Will Starr quoted correctly, Williams said nothing not perfectly true and certainly did not attempt to deny the significance of slavery. Indeed, he pointed out some of the effects, both good and bad.
Yet he is an "Uncle Tom" for speaking truth. Motto: don't take offense when none is offered.What kind of twisted analysis would consider slavery a positive good under any circumstances? Only John Calhoun of mid 19th century America, a South Carolina politician and slaveholder could make so outrageous a statement. To consider it to be 'truth' by any standard can be considered dubious at best.
The kind of analysis that looks objectively at it, that is as much concerned about individual, specific results as well as the overall picture.
I did not read into those words anything at all that made excuses that slavery was an overall good thing. It DID indicate that it was not 100% negative, but then very few things in life are so that should not come as a surprise.
Only those with a hundred years of subjective hatred built up, that refuse to be objective, could ever claim that there were zero good results from slavery.
I'm not sure why the discussion, though. No thinking person would deny that there were some small positive results, but no thinking person would deny that it was overwhelmingly negative either. Why discuss it then? To make excuses for our ancestors - both those that owned slaves and those that collected them in Africa and sold them to the slave traders?
Not particularly interested - it was what it was, we've learned better and morally grown far beyond that despicable practice. Let it die, cleanse ourselves of the grief, hatred and the playing of the blame game.
Not the hatred of the action - that should always remain with us - but the negative emotions towards the people that engaged in it. It makes no more sense to blame them than to blame the caged lion that kills it's keeper - people of the time found nothing wrong with the practice. They also didn't have the extra 200 years we have had to build our morality to the point that we recognize the evils of slavery. Just like our own ancestors, I'm sure that our descendents will find parts of our life and the way we treat others (Gay marriage? Capital punishment? Abortion? Treatment of the insane?) to be utterly despicable and disgusting.Ok, Wildey, you said:
The kind of analysis that looks objectively at it, that is as much concerned about individual, specific results as well as the overall picture.
A thoughful reply, thank you. Would any Jewish survivor of the Nazi holocaust claim that there were some residual and beneficial effects while cooly looking back on it 70 years later? It is statistically unlikely as you say for anything to be totally bad or totally good. But if history were reversed and Anglos were enslaved by Blacks under circumstances similar to what actually happened, could you be so clinical in your analysis?
You said:
"Only those with a hundred years of subjective hatred built up, that refuse to be objective, could ever claim that there were zero good results from slavery".
Those that did not go through the period and realize the effect of the institution on their families and communities for a considerable period after it was ended, may not in fact be in a position to 'see' the big picture.
You said:
I'm not sure why the discussion, though. No thinking person would deny that there were some small positive results, but no thinking person would deny that it was overwhelmingly negative either. Why discuss it then? To make excuses for our ancestors - both those that owned slaves and those that collected them in Africa and sold them to the slave traders?
Thinking people would find some residual benifit, but would be hard pressed to do so. Dr. Williams saying that Blacks finding themselves in America was a benifit to them far greater than the disadvantage imposed upon them through slavery is minimizing the reality. The tone was apologist, clearly. The creator of this thread made the unfortunate mistake of bringing Dr. williams into this to support some rightwing stance. She tasked me and I responded.
You said:
"Not particularly interested - it was what it was, we've learned better and morally grown far beyond that despicable practice. Let it die, cleanse ourselves of the grief, hatred and the playing of the blame game."
Have we really? We spent the next century after slavery's abolition, fighting for the right to sit anywhere on the bus we wished, having to negotiate within Congress on the virtue of criminalizing lynching practices throughout the South. I always do forgive as those that practiced and the slaves themselves are long dead. But we are fools to forget this and anything that resembles second class citizenship, and I and we are eternally vigilant with eyes toward the future in that regard.
You said:
Not the hatred of the action - that should always remain with us - but the negative emotions towards the people that engaged in it.
It makes no more sense to blame them than to blame the caged lion that kills it's keeper - people of the time found nothing wrong with the practice. They also didn't have the extra 200 years we have had to build our morality to the point that we recognize the evils of slavery.
I hear you:
But I do blame them, but I am not bitter for they, too, are all dead. These people of the 18th and 19th centuries were, as easily identified in the writings of the time, well aware of the moral and constitutional contradictions involved in the "peculiar institution" but chose to ignore these as an imposition on
those that chose to exploit labor and steal land (Native Americans) and first and foremost it wasn't them that were being imposed upon. A few good people during the time John Quincy Adams for example wanted to present our guiding document as rife with hypocrisy in practice. There were not enough people like him. There was nothing to learn, they already knew.'Sigh" "Dr. Williams saying that Blacks finding themselves in America was a benifit to them far greater than the disadvantage imposed upon them through slavery is minimizing the reality"
That blacks live in the US rather than mud huts in the heart of Africa is to their benefit. Examining that statement, with no ties to slavery, it is very obviously true; anyone disagreeing needs to move back to Africa where they can be "happy" It's called being objective, it's called specific, limited results without looking at the totality of slavery - which is exactly what I said.
Neither does it minimize the reality and horrors of slavery. If anything it presents a more truthful picture; as you agree, even slavery wasn't 100% bad. It doesn't excuse it, it doesn't say that benefits outweighed harm and it certainly doesn't say we need to re-institute it. It just says there was a tiny bit of good in the massive evil of owning slaves.
Discrimination, whether against a race be it black, white, Native American or for other reasons such as sexual orientation or religious beliefs I'll leave for another day as it has only a tenuous connecting to slavery and primarily in the case of only one race.
I understand you blame your ancestors, black and white. I understand you hate them. I merely point out that both you and society in general will be better off, happier and more productive if that baggage is left to the past where it belongs.
Slavery is possibly the absolute worst evil that man has perpetrated on the species - far worse than mere murder. It is evil personified and needs stamped on wherever it is found, but making past evils, from people that did not see it so, a major portion of what you are and what your outlook on life is, is counterproductive.You said:
That blacks live in the US rather than mud huts in the heart of Africa is to their benefit. Examining that statement, with no ties to slavery, it is very obviously true; anyone disagreeing needs to move back to Africa where they can be "happy" It's called being objective, it's called specific, limited results without looking at the totality of slavery - which is exactly what I said.
Yes, and Russian immigrants/dissendents escaped the Gulag, how many come to these shores not having left something unpleasant behind? But at least they came as free men with a man's chance to succeed in their adopted land. But, there goes that rightwing streak again " any black disagreeing can return to Africa"? I acknowledged your good points favorably when it was due.
You said:
Neither does it minimize the reality and horrors of slavery. If anything it presents a more truthful picture; as you agree, even slavery wasn't 100% bad. It doesn't excuse it, it doesn't say that benefits outweighed harm and it certainly doesn't say we need to re-institute it. It just says there was a tiny bit of good in the massive evil of owning slaves.
A beneficial remnant of slavery is so small that it is insignificant at best and should not be a leading theme of an argument.
You said:
Discrimination, whether against a race be it black, white, Native American or for other reasons such as sexual orientation or religious beliefs I'll leave for another day as it has only a tenuous connecting to slavery and primarily in the case of only one race.
OK
You said:
I understand you blame your ancestors, black and white. I understand you hate them. I merely point out that both you and society in general will be better off, happier and more productive if that baggage is left to the past where it belongs.
If this is the conclusion you have come to you have glossed over everything that I have tried to explain. I don't hate anybody, but lets deal with the truth and it is not realistic to think that the effects of slavery do not reverberate in much of our race relations today and do have a part even if small as to why we are where we are. I can do this if you able to find a modicum of good in the institution, can I not?
You said:
Slavery is possibly the absolute worst evil that man has perpetrated on the species - far worse than mere murder. It is evil personified and needs stamped on wherever it is found, but making past evils, from people that did not see it so, a major portion of what you are and what your outlook on life is, is counterproductive.
It is not a major portion of what I am and my outlook on life, you are picking this up erroneously."A beneficial remnant of slavery is so small that it is insignificant at best and should not be a leading theme of an argument. "
And yet...this entire sub-thread is the result of taking such offense at a minor statement by Williams, a small portion of his speech, as to use the derogatory and racist term of "uncle Tom" as a description. That there was good in slavery is quite obvious even though insignificant; that someone dares to make a true statement is blown far, far out of proportion when such stupid and despicable labels are the result.
Perhaps the statement itself is as insignificant as as the contents of that statement. Or perhaps we should not speak truth if it upsets the sensibilities of someone.
If I've misread you, I apologize, but you must realize the appearance that your statements give. You made the racist comment about Williams, you've expressed several times that true statements should not be made because they're offensive to you, you've tried to turn a slavery discussion (I can't call it a debate as we agree on nearly everything said) into modern day discrimination while limiting it to discrimination of one race by one other. If memory serves me right, you have in the past jumped with both feet at perceived wrongs or offense on this basic issue in the forums when none was offered. Again, if I've misread it all, I apologize and shall try not to repeat the error, but that's what it looks like.The problem with Williams go beyond just the 'statement' and it is not minor. Its implications go beyond the mere words.
Maybe instead of Uncle Tom, I should have said Quisling, fifth columnist, whatever. His truth and your truth are relative, and not absolute that is what this debate is about. I stand firm and take whatever comes, I ask that the right would do the same and that does not happen often. You have misread a great deal and your apology is accepted. Speak your truth but be prepared to be challenged on its source and its validity from any number of perspectives and do not be intimidated when I ask you support what you say.That you choose to add to Williams words, changing the intended meaning, does not actually change what he said. Only your perception of what he meant. His statement was completely factual and it is only those "implications" that you choose to add to his intent that are offensive. I find no such implications as the rest of the text said the opposite.
Similarly, you could change your name calling to something else; it retains the same intent to denigrate, offend, degrade etc. for no other reason other than that you choose to take offense at his factual statements.
Truth often is relative. Physical location, however, is an absolute; that the descendents of slaves live in the US is not one that is relative.
You could argue that the quality of life in the US vs that in Africa where their ancestors lived (assuming they would now be there) is relative and you would be correct. Do you make the claim that those descendents would be better off in Africa?
"it was what it was, we've learned better and morally grown far beyond that despicable practice. Let it die, cleanse ourselves of the grief, hatred and the playing of the blame game."
But there is gold in them thar hills to be mined, they still use the practice of 150 years ago to define conservatives.
P.S. I have never owned a slave of any color.
of far more concern to me are the attempts of the right to disenfranchise the very same groups under the guise of voter intergrity. Now that sucks the air out of the room!
As distasteful as I find the use of the term, it has become an unintended buzz word with an alternate meaning. I am sure I am not the only one to observe that when someone on the left utilizes this slur the object of their contempt is almost certain to turn out to be an intelligent individual who refuses to be defined by their race. They are usually someone irreverent to anyone's expectation or stereotype for them, who will instead unapologetically support that which they believe in their hearts to be moral and right. I am a very big fan of most of those folks, with the latest being Ben Carson. He is very refreshing and gives me great hope. Now if we could just get the change!
"I am sure I am not the only one to observe that when someone on the left utilizes this slur the object of their contempt is almost certain to turn out to be an intelligent individual who refuses to be defined by their race. They are usually someone irreverent to anyone's expectation or stereotype for them, who will instead unapologetically support that which they believe in their hearts to be moral and right."
Well said!
'Uncle Tom' is racial slur because it refers exclusively to black men, and today, it is term reserved for highly successful and intelligent black men who refuse to live on the liberal plantations and toe the liberal line.'Uncle Tom' is racial slur because it refers exclusively to black men, and today, it is term reserved for highly successful and intelligent black men who refuse to live on the liberal plantations and toe the liberal line."
In otherwords, a rightwinger? They come in all colors but black is rare, most of us are well aware of what they represent and what they have stood for....
"I agree with him, I think capitalism was a far superior system to the feudal one it replaced, then capitalism itself began to be replaced by a better system."
And what, pray tell, would that system be and where has it proved to be 'better'?"In otherwords, a rightwinger? They come in all colors but black is rare, most of us are well aware of what they represent and what they have stood for...."
Why should it be rare for a black man to turn his back on liberalism? And what does a conservative black man 'stand for' that so disturbs you? Dr. Williams, Ben Carson, and Thomas Sowell are outstanding citizens, so why would you sneer at them?Why should it be rare for a black man to turn his back on liberalism? And what does a conservative black man 'stand for' that so disturbs you? Dr. Williams, Ben Carson, and Thomas Sowell are outstanding citizens, so why would you sneer at them?
My answer:
I distrust the conservatives and their philosophy in general. I would say that Barack Obama and Eric Holder are outstanding citizens, but you would not....How much credit do you give to either of them in a positive way? It is what any conservative stands for that disturbs me, it is just that any black man having been educated and aware of the black experience in America should know better. To each his own, there are black conservatives and that is fine. I have read some of Sowell columns and while I disagree with much of what he says, I don't sneer at him. However, Dr.Williams comments went over the top.
Whatever advances Blacks presently enjoy in this society are due primarily to the efforts of liberals not conservatives. You all talk about liberal plantations, what do the conservatives offer besides more depravation and warmed over homilies in place of solid solutions? But it is not just me, you have problems with the Hispanics and oddly enough Mr. Obama received the preponderence of the vote from Asians and Jews just to name a few. Who could accuse these folks of living on 'plantations'? Believe me, there are many issues outside of those involving race that put us at odds with conservative ideology. Accusing 47% of the American public as being moochers does not help your image, are we or any other thoughful people going to warm up to that? You got Donald Trump as your mascot, second strike, and there are many more....The kind that recognizes the problems and offer practical answers as to how those problems may be successful addressed and eliminated
Good answer but not the one I was looking for.
What solid solutions has this administration provided?We have a crumbling infrastructure throughout the US, how about stimilus for jobs instead of austerity at the wrong time of course this is all deep sixed by that mastadon mascot , representing that party of yours, This is just the periphery, just the beginning.
Socialism is a parasitical system that depends on a host, and sooner or later, the parasites kill the host. That is the current problem here in the US...socialist entitlements account for nearly 70% of our spending and are the reason we are now nearly $17 trillion in debt. If we don't rein in socialism and fast, we will go belly up, and the usual tyrants will rise from the rubble. That's what brought us World War Two.
"It is what any conservative stands for that disturbs me..."
And what do conservatives 'stand for'?
BTW, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and it was Republicans who supported the 13th Amendment. Democrats opposed it, and they also opposed Civil Rights."Democrats opposed it, and they also opposed Civil Rights."
That's misleading. The Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights are now Republicans or dead. Now it's the Republicans who are opposed to civil rights for women, minorities, gays and lesbians.Will, it would take another hub to dissect what in my opinion conservatives actually stand for. I have expressed my opinion in many of my articles and I would be delighted to discuss the fine points with you.
Otherwise Ralph pretty much addressed the issue of the GOP and civil rights, a lot has happened in 150 years, wouldn't you say?I was raised in a Southern Democrat household.
Funny how the stereotype Ralph wants you to think of them didn't exist there.
Or any other household like that that I knew of.
Explanations?Ralph would have you believe his comments were set in stone.
My experiences say otherwise.So, please enlighten me, what is wrong with this statement, is it not true?
That's misleading. The Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights are now Republicans or dead. Now it's the Republicans who are opposed to civil rights for women, minorities, gays and lesbians.So you live under the delusion that no Southern Democrats like that exist today?
Why?Ok, there has to be some, acknowledged. But the Democratic party has the overwhelming support of blacks in the south and everywhere else. I am sure that they would not be giving that support to those that undermine their aspirations and are just Dixiecrats under the skin....... It simply does not make sense
"The only issues are how much regulation is required to keep the public from being screwed by Wall Street banksters..."
The bank that is screwing Americans is the Federal Reserve, and that is the government's bank, created by government specifically to screw Americans.
In 1960, when we still had treasury silver certificates, you could go to any bank and swap it for a silver dollar. A dollar was worth a dollar. Imagine that!
In 1963, the federal Reserve quietly replaced all silver certificates (and their promise to pay) with worthless federal reserve notes promising nothing. Today, it takes about 25 federal reserve 1 dollar notes to buy a silver dollar, meaning that the value of a FRN is now just 4 cents. Government stole the other 96 cents by printing money up out of thin air.
Government is the real thief.Just how do you think anything the Federal Reserve does affects you. Investors seem to like the Fed's actions to keep short and long-term interest rates low. The stock market has been hitting record highs lately in case you haven't noticed. I like what the Fed has been doing.
"Just how do you think anything the Federal Reserve does affects you."
I thought I explained that...by inflating our money to near worthlessness. That's why gas costs $4 a gallon, and hamburger costs nearly $4 per pound.
Price is a function of supply and demand, as we all know, but inflation also plays a big part. Inflation also hits retired, fixed income people the hardest.Seems to me you are worrying about the wrong problem. Currently, inflation is quite low and unemployment is quite high. The Fed is properly carrying out it's lawful function of encouraging economic growth and hiring without letting inflation get out of hand.
To the left, government is the solution. To a conservative, government is the problem.
The free market, unburdened by heavy regulations, government meddling, and high taxes, has always prospered, but sooner or later, government has always put stop to that prosperity. That is what happened in the 2008 housing market and that is what is happening today.
BTW, inflation is soaring, but since we don't count gasoline and food, it is hidden.
Booker T Washington was a great man, but WEB Dubois was better, Washington was an accomodationist, the last thing we needed in late 19th century America. The points you try to make have nothing to do with the images you plaster up here.
Really? Maybe we should ask some modern day black Conservatives what they have to live with daily?
How true, Barefootfae!
Dr. Ben Carson is already getting hate mail for adhering to his conservative principles, and the 'Uncle Tom' racial slurs are being thrown at him hot and heavy. As the left points out, blacks are supposed to toe the liberal line and not stray off the plantation.
Ever notice how most blacks never seem to get a good education and never seem to get ahead? Ever notice how, in the inner city plantation, black on black daily slaughter gets virtually no press except when liberals want to push gun control? Ever notice how Barack Obama never gives the black condition anything but lip service?
As long as blacks remain on the inner city plantation, the left is content to ignore them until an election rolls around.
The left fears conservative blacks simply because none of them will stay on the plantation!Excuse me, she said, "Think." Not . . . parrot back the Fox News Buzz.
"Excuse me, she said, "Think." Not . . . parrot back the Fox News Buzz."
You seriously think conservatives don't think?
Not one word of that came from FOX by the way, so your feeble attempt to diminish failed utterly. What is it with liberals that makes them think that sneers, scorn, and ridicule make an argument?Perhaps because they learn it from the never ending Obama campaign and their public relations and promotion organizations more commonly known as the "main stream media". For those of whom that is true, it would only follow to them that the conservatives must get their marching orders from Fox.
See when they use "Fox" you are supposed to shut up just like when they say "Racist".
"Will, it would take another hub to dissect what in my opinion conservatives actually stand for."
Conservatives by definition are not radicals, while progressives by definition are radicals.
If you are not willing to stand by your own accusations, there's no point in discussing anything with you or paying you any mind.Are you descending into simply minded replies, Will Conservatism at its extremes is as "radical" if not more so than anything on the left. What would be an answer for you. I guess you can go join your right wing "easy answer" people, I guess that is ok, but I thought that you were better.... I will stand by anything I say, but if you will not take the time to look into where I provide extensive answers, that is not my problem. Do you right wing guys ever really want to learn anything evaluating the value of both sides or is it just bashing you are into?
I am not trying to bash anyone and why does it always get portrayed that Conservatives need to learn something?
That is insulting at best and dishonest at worst.
I used to think I was a liberal and every day discussing things here with liberals just cements my conviction that I am not a liberal. I don't hate people as much as most liberals do.Bashing, it depends upon where you are looking at it from, I guess.
I wanted to find out about your foundation, I went to your site and read your article to get a better understanding of perhaps where most of you people come from in your reasoning. I do not stubbornly take a position without looking into the virtues, if any, from the other. Check out some of the articles and replies from Yahoo when it comes to racial or immigration issue, the rightwing hatred and irrational attitudes literally have blood pouring from my monitor. When it comes to this stuff, the liberal is amateur compared to the rightwinger.
"Will Conservatism at its extremes is as "radical" if not more so than anything on the left."
You make vague accusations like that but never tell us exactly what you mean. I'm a conservative, but I wish no one any ill will. I support freedom and our God-given rights, so I have no idea why you despise me as a conservative.
Care to explain?Have you notice the exponential increase in 'hate groups' since Obama have been elected? Much of those are aryan, white supremicist varieties, hardly liberal by any descripiton, they are extreme rightwing if anything Statistics say that from the end of 2008 to 2011 the number of these groups had increased from 149 to 1,274.This incredible increase corresponds with the Obama term of office
http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism
Here is something to ponder over, what is going on on the left that is the equivalent?
"You make vague accusations like that but never tell us exactly what you mean. I'm a conservative, but I wish no one any ill will. I support freedom and our God-given rights"
Funny,
So, I make the same claim about you and how as a liberal/progressive, I wish no one any ill will. I support freedom and our God given rights as well, but there are differences in our perception of what that involves. So how come we are the ogres?
This is nothing personal, Will, we can always sit down and have a cup of coffee as long as we don't talk about politics. I am talking about ideologies and the platforms that support them. This is not about individuals.You probably aren't the ogre.
Of course I am a conservative and we are all ogres right?
Hate groups? You think there are no such thing in the liberal realm?
"Have you notice the exponential increase in 'hate groups' since Obama have been elected? Much of those are aryan, white supremicist varieties, hardly liberal by any descripiton, they are extreme rightwing if anything"
And you think they represent 'conservatism'? Really?
You need to be very cautious with such labels, because the racist groups you named have no conservative values at all, and we are not linked in any way. And why on earth would you link such outstanding conservative Americans as Dr. Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Ben Carson to such groups?
You need to learn to be more discriminating (and yes, being discriminating can also be a very good thing!).Conservatives by definition are not radicals, while progressives by definition are radicals.
Maybe you need to check your own definitions a little bit. Why don't you tell me what is so "radical" that is leftist in its origin?Radical definition - "A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform."
Of course that does not apply to the right who are perfectly happy with Obama's governance!
"Maybe you need to check your own definitions a little bit. Why don't you tell me what is so "radical" that is leftist in its origin?"
Sure. Barack Obama represents the progressive radicalism of the left very well.
While conservatives, by the very definition of the term, want to conserve and preserve traditional American values, the Constitution, and the free market that has made us so prosperous, the progressive left (also by the very definition of the term) wants to drastically change both our values and our economy, and radically so.
Almost all our old moral standards are being tossed out, and successful capitalism is under attack by those who want to try failed socialism one more time. The Constitution is constantly under attack by the left, and one well known leftist professor recently said that we should dump it completely.I hardly consider Obama to a be a bomb throwing leftist, that is what you see through your crimson red colored glasses, he is center left in the tradition of Bill Clinton. Only those of rabid rightwing circles refer to Obama as some sort of leftist radical, did they say the same of Bill Clinton?
That is all depends on what you want to preserve:
Would it be an American economic structure prior to 1929, is it traditional values, did it work?
No EPA, no unions, these 'changes' from what you comfortable call 'traditional values' have been on going since the thirties, would you feel comfortable prior living prior to that time? Sweatshops, childlabor, unsafe work conditions? Who made the right the guardian of the Constitution? You have been informed several times that Capitalism under proper oversight is not Socialism and that is what most of us radical revolutionary leftists actually adhere to.
The point is that nobody just gets to do with they want in this without being held accountable.
The right always talk of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, but that only applies in issues that they favor or have a stake and in never otherwise. So, you folks are hardly Constitutional purists!
Your moral standards are just that, old moral standards, Did you know that prior to 1967 miscegenation or mixed marriages between races was illegal in many states, are these the traditional moral values you refer to? Ozzie and Harriet was just a TV show and it was never real, not even during the time it appeared on the air. Wilderness said earlier that conservatives have evolved, listening to you, I really don't know that they have. We are not immoral people but in cases where there is no harm done to others, people are free to do what they like, is that not freedom. The freedom you guys talk about all of the time? Morallity cannot be legislated.
It always comes down to a matter of perspective.
"I hardly consider Obama to a be a bomb throwing leftist..."
I didn't say 'bomb throwing'.
Barack Obama's mother, father, and maternal grandfather were all radical Marxists. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis was an avowed communist. Obama himself admitted that he sought out Marxist professors. His chosen faith of Black Liberation Theology was created by a Marxist and it's based on Marxism. His pastor of twenty years is an America hating Marxist, and he associated with Bill Ayers, a known terrorist and of course, another Marxist.
Those are all indisputable facts, Credence, not opinions. Obama is a radical leftist, and just as he promised, he is transforming America into a socialist state and spending us into a collapse.In spite of all the the points you made, there is no evidence of adherence to Marxism in the way he governs, past aside. That is what I am paying attention to. Your facts are seen by many on our side as just your opinion. If he is so frightening how did he manage to be reelected, are the vast majority of the American electorate fools, and some how the right has got the answers, I doubt it?
We live in a democracy where the three branches serves as checks to one another, how does Obama become the dictator you all wring your hands about under such circumstances? I remember that the Right said the same thing about FDR.
This spending/ taxing issue is another line of debate that have intelligent advocates on either side. You can hold on to all that, Will, but it is not convincing on its face.Does this answer the question about American electorate fools?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
It is the number one attitude and belief that won the election.This is just rubbish, Wildey, is this the best you can do? I am trying to take you seriously. do i have to remind you that Obama won most every demographic, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and Blacks, Do you think that the more affluent groups Jews and Asians cared who was going to pay for their mortgage and provide free gas, you are dissembling here. A stupid 30 second clip cannot explain how and why Barack Obama won. If this is the best the Right has to offer, it is no wonder that you consistently lose.
Obama is a radical leftist, and just as he promised, he is transforming America into a socialist state and spending us into a collapse.
Yeah, because the assets of the wealthy have been seized and redistributed to the poor--oh, wait, in reality-world the top 1% of American households still control about 35% of the total wealth, and they still pay lower effective tax rates than pretty much anyone else (they pay more in raw dollars, to be sure, but percentage-wise, they pay lower rates).
If Obama is a radical leftist, he really sucks at it. You have no evidence that he's actually done anything that advances anything even remotely resembling a radical leftist agenda. The reason you have no evidence is that none exists: Obama has done nothing even remotely radical* since his election. Even his healthcare reform bears a stronger resemblance to the conservative plan from the 90s (the alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposal) and Romneycare than it does to any real nationalized health plan.
Reality shows us that Obama is a centrist--even closer to the center than Bill Clinton was. But conservatives keep conjuring the chimaera of socialism to make him seem scary and different and less American. Too bad it didn't work--or rather, good thing it didn't. 'Cos Romney would have sold off our assets, looted what's left of Social Security, borrowed trillions against the USA's credit for distribution to his cronies, declared the country bankrupt, and resigned by now. That's how he made most of his money, after all, and that's what he built his campaign on: his success as a "businessman."
*With the possible exception of his new support for marriage equality; however, that's all in the way you look at it. Some would call that radical. Most others would call it being a decent human being.
You know, Wildey, there are many people that says that Trump's statement regarding immigration preference for Europeans at the CPAC are factual as well, I am engaged with a gentlemen who is saying just that. I am not changing Williams words, that is what he said and the Right is delighted by this and use Williams as a tool to promote their interests that have never been to our advantage, at least over recent times. But don't they always trot out an Alan Keyes or Mister 999 as example of the legitimacy of their point of view? What is in the box is more important than how it is painted.
To say slavery was a small price to pay when the outcome was to live in
America is relative, who would have wanted to be a slave? You wouldn't. Neither he(Williams) nor you are in a position to say that this factual. Who knows at the time the slaves were freed and if they had returned to Africa, history might well have been different in regard to the status of Africa, today. The right relishes calling Obama a Marxist, communist and etc, what about this? In the face of this, am I not entitled to an opinion? You folk certainly make clear your disdain for your bogeymen.
It took more than a century after abolition to even begin to speak about equal rights as citizens. The lynching, public humiliation, jim crow discrimination, who could say that if you knew all this was coming after abolition that this would be preferable to returning to Africa? Who alive is qualified to make that call?
You said, Do you make the claim that those descendents would be better off in Africa?
Here and now, no, but then and there, maybe.No, you don't change his words, just his meaning.
Williams never meant that "slavery was a small price to pay when the outcome was to live in America" He never insinuated it. He never mentioned it. He, instead, made clear that the opposite was true. He said, from the quote above, that " I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights". No indication whatsoever that it was desirable - that insinuation comes only from you and is the change I mention.
Your "bogeyman" - slavery - is far in the past. It is gone. Even the ugly discrimination that people apply to others can't be truly attributed to slavery; if it were so then there would be no discrimination of hispanics, Native Americans, Innuit or yes, whites. None were slaves to any real degree and if slavery were the cause of discrimination all would have had to be slaves to face the discrimination they have.
And again, I agree with you. Life in the US, then, was far worse than life in Africa or even death. Now of course is a different story, and doubly so if one is not in the slums of major cities.I wanted to check on this a little more outside of the article provided by Will
"The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today's American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have"
That is what he said
I did not want to appear to be taking words out of thin air..
Slavery has made the black population all the more vulnerable upon the introduction of legalized segregation and its deleterious effect on the advancement of the black community at so critical a time at the beginning of the Reconstruction period. The destruction of family structures that was a part a slavery was just a part of that. Everybody discriminates and at one time was discriminated against for all sorts of reasons. But, I am talking about the degree and the extent and that is not all equal among the offended parties. It is good that we have found some common ground in this protracted discussion. Thanks for an all the more clear look at the view from the Right.Yes, he apparently said that. I don't know why he "volunteered" that comment, though. The original question was to do with capitalism and slavery, but his first comments did not seem to have anything to do with capitalism. I surmise that there was more to the discussion than we're seeing here and that the later comment somehow fit into capitalism. Perhaps that it, too, has some good in it beyond the bad things we see. I don't know.
I do think that slavery made the black population more vulnerable to discrimination, including segregation, just as it made the white population more "vulnerable" to being discriminatory and for much the same reasons.
I also think that discrimination against the native indian population was nearly as bad if not just as bad or worse. The biggest difference was in the numbers in the population; there weren't as many to discriminate against and the uproar wasn't there because of that. People were still killed, were still second class citizens and segregated. It just wasn't done in groups of tens of thousands or millions but in much smaller groups of a few hundred or thousand. Not nearly as newsworthy and so not as commonly recognized.
I'm not sure, though, that you can classify my comments as being from the right; I don't make a very good Republican or right winger. I'm just me, someone that has had an abiding hatred of slavery and anyone that would enslave another human being for as long as can remember. It didn't come from my childhood upbringing - I think there were 2 black families in the whole town and while they were certainly oddities to a child that had never seen a black kid it never went beyond that. I even remember in elementary school going to a birthday party for one at his home. They were people, just funny looking people. Like the (white) crippled lady down the street that went to our church. Or my Grandmother, with one crippled and short leg. Funny looking, but just people to a kid never exposed to the discrimination of the south.
So I don't know that I represent the right very well. I firmly believe in freedom for all - something neither the far right OR left seems to. I believe we are each responsible for playing the hand we are dealt, as best we can, and that does not include stepping on other people no matter how lightly, no matter what race, no matter what their belief system.I have read that Irish endured a great deal of discrimination. But strong families ties allow them to get through the stages that most newcomers to America will face and eventually do assimilate into the wider society. Close knit families and communities make the transition easier. I have seen the Vietnamese not long after the fall of Saigon, come here and immediately set up their own banks and infrastructure, families living with one another until one family gets enough money to buy his own house. Compared to blacks, hispanics are much more closely knit and survive on the virtue of extended families. But most came here to America well prepared to face the challenges of assimilation. The plight of native americans exceed that of the Blacks in my opinion. Both groups, because their introduction to American life was adverse rather than voluntary, did not and have not assimilated into the melting pot as successfully. Our group lack the cohesiveness and willingness to work with and trust one another that comes from the tradition of extended family. Not an excuse, but an explanation as to why we tend to have more trouble than others. We must be aware of this disadvantage and compensate for it
While seeing you around , your views are certainly conservative but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks again......
My definition of social justice is everybody earning enough to live off.
And who's responsibility is it to make sure that happens?
SATAN'S?Nah, generally the rich and powerful - oh, hang on, yes you are right - Satan.
You do understand that your version of "justice" is another persons "theft"? As soon as you steal (take, tax, whatever word you want to use) from one to give to another "justice" is plainly out the window.
How do you get that from "everybody earning enough to live off"?
Surely those not earning enough to live off and needing government support are the ones being stolen off!And who dropped the ball on making sure
someone earned enough to live on?
The GOVERNMENT?So the government forced employers to under pay people!
So the government forced the workers to work there?
No, they could just sit around and starve to death.
But, they aren't inclined to sit around and starve?
Exactly! That's why people take jobs that they know won't feed and house them properly.
Did the Government impregant the mother of the poor person?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0I dont think thats true John , unlike you who is intelligent and creative , there are a lot of lesser educated , lesser capable of creating thier own job or wealth and are perfectly happy to just have a job . Actually I come from a long line of working class people , factories , contruction trades , My self ? I'm going down to the welfare office tomorrow and apply for bennies , I'm just soo tired !
How much happier would those people who are just happy to have a job be if their job paid them enough not to have to go cap in hand to the government for support?
Incidentally, there's a case in Manchester at the moment of a bloke who after a year or so on the dole took it upon himself to go on a training course and to join a job club.
The DHS stopped his benefits. The reason they gave "It's only right that we should make sure that people do everything they can to find work if they want to claim unemployment benefit."
So getting training and getting help applying for jobs doesn't count as "doing everything they can"!
"What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?"
Notice that the left refuses to address this, and tries to misdirect.
The left's sense of 'social justice' is that those who did nothing to earn it have more right to your wages than you do. They couch that in liberal babble, but that's what they mean.I am not easily spooked, Will, I will take your question head on.
Your definition of social justice, has provisos. Do you go to the supermarket? Do you realize the benefits of going into a store and being confident that the carton of orange juice you buy is just that and not something else? Who provides maintenance for the roads that you freely drive your car across everyday? You folks are hot to trot on the idea of a strong defense, and all that. My point, if it is not obvious already, is that we have to pay for the services provided by the Government. I know that you conservative types talk up the concept of rugged individualism, but I don't think that you have a bio-chem lab in your house to verify that all the food obtained that you did not grow is, in fact, safe to eat. These people have to be paid. So, I say to you what the rightwinger always tell me, 'there is no free lunch' So, you have to pay taxes so neither you nor I will get to keep everything we earn.
Whether we like it or not, we are far more interdependent than otherwise as the "Marlboro Man" has long since ridden into the sunset.
I never can get the Right to tell me what would be the acceptable balance, do you want to dispense with Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage? Do we go back to Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Carnegie, tenement sweatshops of early 20th century America, lets say 1905-1910? What would satisfy you, what do you advocate? Welfare, unemployment insurance (just make sure that you are not unemployed for any reason). Or, do we go back even further to the guys in powdered wigs and knee britches, family farms, artisans and craftsmen on the individual level? What is your idea of what has to remain communal and necessary verses what aspects of this "socialist" system that would you want to do away with?All that and yet he still did not address this:
"What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?"Credence2, while I disagree with much/most of the positions I have seen you present so far, I do appreciate the thought you have put into them and your ability to clearly convey your perspective.
I am not aware of anyone "on the right" or "conservative", or whatever we wish to label folks, (I know we do it for both sides), who disagree with the need for a government. We just don't want to see the money frivolously squandered. You could do a few minutes research and find a litany of ridiculous and redundant government expenditures, particularly under the current administration. If you are genuinely unaware that a huge percentage of our tax dollars are at best misused and at worst wasted, please take a few minutes and look into it.
When asked to reduce the increase, (not even make a genuine cut), however, we find needed services attacked rather than thoughtful and responsible adjustments made. Adjustments that could reduce our expenses dramatically while remaining largely transparent in terms of genuinely needed services. If our tax dollars were managed properly, I fully expect taxes could be cut substantially and once the debt was addressed, services could even be increased.
Neither side, once in power, has managed the money that well, so you could argue that perhaps it can't be done. Logistically it could, but only with intelligent, honest and determined leadership who genuinely strives for the best interests of the people they govern. Perhaps that is the part that is nearly impossible. In contrast, it appears we are currently experiencing unprecedented acceleration toward economic destruction. No amount of taxes, it seems, will ever be enough to feed the appetite of the reigning ideology.
It is not that anyone does not expect to pay the expenses of running a government to maintain those things which everyone needs. Nor am I aware of anyone denying there are those in society who genuinely need, and should get assistance. We just know the current path is about far more than that, and we know where it leads.bBerean, your kudos are appreciated, thanks for stepping up and allowing me to see what it is most of the conservatives are looking for in regards to this topic.
No one on my side wants to see money frivolously squandered. When one considered the Bush Administration since 2001, I don't know if either party can claim to be the fiscally responsible one.
I worked for the U.S. Government and yes there a culture of waste in 'use of lose' spending of appropriated dollars toward the end of each fiscal year. As a former contracting officer, I am acutely aware of the structural inefficiencies built in to the system. These inefficiencies are not partisan by any means, as I have served under several administrations representing both political parties. We have seen with the gridlock that problems with spending and not getting about to the peoples business is also bipartisan.
The problem is that one ideological idea of what is waste is another's essential expediture. We can never really get pass these loggerhead without compromise. It may well be true that it might come down in regards to Congress and partisanship to an analogy of blue M&M's verses red, the difference is superficial but they both taste the same going down. But who is ready to get at the waste that we can all agree on without cutting down one sides sacred cows or the other's?
Based on what you say here, we are not so different. While I would rather see a scalpel used instead of a meat ax in regards to the needed cuts, because we have so many meat heads we are left with the sequester.
There are valid concerns we have on the left, and I am with the President when he talks about a balanced approach to this matter, I and he does this facing the ire of those on his left that do not want to touch any entitlement programs. But I am not willing to destroy these programs in exchange for a bloated military establishment and more of the same trickle down philosophy a la Ronald Reagan.
The problem is that our representatives in Washington are too often working to butter their own bread at our expense and this also seems to be bipartisan in nature. I certainly can subscribe to term limits and the like to remind these senators and representatives who it is, in fact, they actually work for.
I don't see the Conservative philosophy as represented by the GOP as the more fiscally responsible
The statement by Dr. Williams is not about taxes.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Interesting little tidbit ! I was recently investigating my own family records in a town clerks office , and found my grandmothers permission slip for my aunt and uncle on my fathers side , For indentured farm labor , the year ? 1939 ! This , in a small new England town office ! Say what we will , there are many kinds of slavery and always was ! I hate this whole victimhood culture today , I was niether a slaveholder not was anyone alive today a slave !
Always unanswered by the left:
"What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?"people are inclined to work for money.
OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL
in any way they ACCEPT.
end of story.
finis.
!So, we are done and we all agree it is up to each individual to figure out his own means of survival? and the freer the economy, the easier it will be for all members of society who are trying to survive? Of course I think we need to be more helpful toward each other and less competitive when it gets in the way of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Right, John?We just have to all get on the same page as Jesus!
Love your neighbor as yourself!
What a great Revolutionary He was!It's a shame none of you actually follow his teachings.
I don't remember the bit where he said every man for himself and the winner takes all, more that it was easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.we agree... why do you say "you all?'
If only the "Elite" agreed! They want control. They have all the money they need; c o n t r o l is what they want. (Yes, I heard that from a guest on "Coast to Coast." He explained that he had been a pastor for the Elite... the rich powerful men who really do rule the world through their Wealth. Some of them live in Alaska, he said. ) He seemed to think that the Muslim Brotherhood is connected to people in our government. not naming names.I had this funny thought picture of Jesus in an Armani Suit, courtesy of Brooks Brothers and some killer shoes from Gucci, of course.
Thou shalt get it all while one can?
Someone said that Jesus set a great example, he did. It is just a shame that so many that claim to subscribe to him and his teachings choose to use the a la carte method.its called Anti-Christ for a reason!
Could we be talking about
SATAN?
instead?
we gotta be discerning!!Alright, Kathryn,
It is accepted in Christian circles that with the exception of the true faithful, non hypocritical believer that the world and its Governments are all in the hands of Satan. Satan could not have offered Jesus the wealth of the worlds nations in exchange for his worship, if he did not already own them!
All of them!
So there is no one in a position to be holier than thou about anything....Wow. I doubt, though, that the Israelis or residents of Vatican City would agree much. Or most of the near east. Or Chinese, Japanese or Russians.
In fact, I doubt you would find much agreement outside of strong Christian nations and then only if you take Vatican City out of the equation.Wildey, I hear you, and you have to wonder why we have so much religion, but people never seem to get any better..... The 'truth', and I only speak for myself, has to be sought after and identified on individual level. Leave it to man to muck up simple and beautiful concepts.
( Credence2: I thought you were saying I as acting holier than thou. I get that a lot. I have decided to not let it stop me from explaining the truth (As I See It.)
The more free the economy, the more ways there are to network, providing goods, services, skills, talents, give and take of money, give and take of services, give and take of goods. The freer the economy the more varied and abundant the ways and means of economic opportunity. The rich and powerful are the ones who have ruined it for the rest of us. THEY need a CHECK and it ain't socialism which instead punishes the middle class and the poor as well.
BTW Being "Poor" is temporary in a free economy!Those that wish to plan society are only willing to undergo such a circumstance if it is them doing the planning!
Deleted
Anyone believing they have the intelligence and capacity to satisfy society through their planning would be a terrifying dictator.
The only way to enforce cental planning is through force!If the government,
1. had the ability to satisfy the needs of society,
2. decided to satisfy those needs,
3. planned to satisfy those needs,
it could only be carried out through force.
The " planning" should not be undertaken by the government, but rather by the individual. It is the natural God given right of every individual to have jurisdiction of his/her own life.
I think that is what the eagle was saying. Who can disagree with that???
WHO?
"Ok, Will, as two individuals, nothing you earn belongs to me and vice versa."
Then you do not support so called 'social justice', because that's exactly what it does. It proposes that someone who did nothing to earn it has more right to my earnings than I do."In that sense, no, I do not support the idea of 'social justice'. Who are you saying does support in just the way you presented it?"
"Social justice' is based on the notion of redistribution of wealth, and the main supporter is none other than Barack Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEZn9bihch8The statement by Dr. Williams is about the redistribution of wealth championed by socialists.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Okay people , so lets make minimum wage 28 dollars per hour ! Right? .....wrong! , Miinimum wage is actualy called minimum wage for a reason ! That is the base accepted level of wages a person should earn , that doesnt mean that by any means minimum wage is enough to live comfortably on , its just a law that says "no one makes Less than this ! We need to protect the lower earners to SOME extent , but its no ones obligation to make them well off . Anyone that wants socialism should go and find the new home that offers socialism , leave the most succesful free society the way it is !
Wages, like everything else, are a function of supply and demand. There are plenty of unskilled people out there and demand is for them low, so wages should also be low. Artificially assigning a 'minimum wage' results in loss of jobs and more people on welfare.
And that's the plan.Not artificially setting a minimum wage led to sweat shops, the working homeless, and all the horrors of the early industrial revolution where workers were treated as disposable.
Even now, Wal-Mart leverages public assistance so their employees can have enough to live on.
Wal-Mart can afford to pay their employees a living wage, but their current system of having the taxpayer subsidize their profits seems to be working out well for them.
Remind us: who's supposedly abusing the welfare system?
Let the free market set wages. Wage and price controls never work, and the minimum wage is just another name for wage controls. Such government interference results in thousands of lost jobs.
And that is why the left despises the likes of Dr. Williams. Dr. Carson, and Thomas Sowell. Black men are supposed to toe the entitlement line.
Yes.....that I why I say they do more harm to the races than good because they want them to stay under their thumb.
The very essence of this comment betrays why minority groups vote democrat and will for the foreseeable future, your very comment implies that minorities are incapable of determining a party that is doing what is best for and with them from a party that is exploiting their vote, until the 60s the GOP often won the black vote then it's policies changed, it developed it's love affair with the south and minority voters changed their affiliation, those are not the actions of a group voting out of habit or from ignorance but of a group able to see who will better represent them and vote as such. The GOP prefers to believe in a fantasy.
Baloney........
The Democrat party has done far more harm than good to the races. That's why they embraced the Civil Rights movement because they realized they could have a permanent voter base if they just because Santa Claus. And that's exactly what they did.AHAHAH your history is woefully incorrect as usual #1 because you think the Civil rights movement was somehow "Santa Claus" #2 because more Republicans voted for the civil rights act than democrats.
Face it, minorities saw right through your "baloney" and that is why you do and will continue to lose their vote.Oh yes....the Democrats had to be brought in kicking and screaming....until they figured out how to make it work for them.
Sorry Charlie but I was alive and watching then. You were elsewhere in the world and get your info filtered through liberal bull crap.the Democrats had to be brought in kicking and screaming...
I've noticed that when conservatives want to "prove" that Democrats are racists, they have to look back about 50-60 years for evidence, while when you look for evidence of racism from the Right, you can find it in an ad from the last election.
Of course, the Right loves to invoke the mythical Golden Age of American prosperity, when things were as they should be. Except...in the 1950s, unions were powerful, taxes were high, segregation was the law of the land*, and conservatives were killing people for trying to end it.
*Until '54, but de facto segregation continued long after.Actually we don't have to go any further than now but it's always fun to listen to the Dixiecrat road apples you always get to try and explain the racism.
Well, Josak, it proves most annoying when all these righties seem to know more about your tribe and its aspirations that you do. They all read verbatim from the their rightwing playbooks and it sounds so much like a broken vinyl record. You tell them same things over and over. Just like the "Chatty Cathy" dolls their parrot the same things, over and over.
The Democratic Party on the national level made the change away from being the party of disgruntled descendents of the former Confederacy in 1932 with FDR. This realignment did not reach the state and local levels, particularly in the South, until the late 1960's. So by 1970 the die was cast.
So it is silly to think that this was some sort of ploy when it has evolved over the last 80 years. So who is advocating and what proof do they have besides the feelings in their gut?
We have the other side saying that we are all children and know not what we do, who has made them so smart? We are being deceived by the Dems, while the GOP hoped during the last election season and schemed through voter supression that we would sit that election out and find our comfort with cigarettes, malt liquor and fried chicken. But no, to the contrary, a sleeping giant had been awakened. They stood in lines around the polls in a defiant statement to the GOP and the rightwingers that they would not be marginalized. I was most proud.
The GOP is on a losing track and they know it, but the rightwinger can be both a thug and brute at the heart and is determined to make sure that the advantage is skewed to them regardless of whether the method be fair or foul. As a result, eternal vigilance is always necessary.I am not saying you are children I am saying there are a large number of folks who have been fooled into believing the Democrat party are their saviors and yet they aren't any better off than they were.
If they were we wouldn't be having this discussion.There is bad and there is worse and there is worse, the GOP record within the Black community can at best be described as indifferent and at worse being hostile and racist.
Why is the debate framed as if Black's see Dems as saviors? Believe me, I am not fooled, and there are plenty of others like myself that are not fooled either. So how many see the GOP as their savior? Preserving the things and values that they want, how would they view the equivalent of a Thomas Sowell within their ranks? Your party is doing a lot of soul searching, dealing with "who are the geniune conservatives' issue at this very time.You are correct about the soul searching, we have too many politicians on the GOP side going along with what has kept Blacks down. The war against poverty has been a complete failure, giving things away isn't helping them it is hurting them.
I am open to a different approach, but that nothing imaginative is coming from the GOP. Thanks for your voice of reason, I ponder the problem and succinctly address the issue.
http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/One-P … ca-Part-II
We are to blame for some of our problems, I would be lying if I denied this. I assail those to my left constantly about such things.You gave me some things to think about in your piece. But, I do not think you are voting for the lesser of two evils in voting for democrats. As a matter of fact I think you are voting for evil as it relates to your race. Tell me what democrats have done for you in the way of jobs? How have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton improved your life in asking you to follow democrats?
You keep voting for the very thing that is keeping you down because you fall for the rhetoric.That is exactly what i have been trying to say.....
So what does the GOP have to offer except voter suppression, emphasis on Thurston Howell getting their tax cuts instead of stimulating the economy to produce jobs. I know enough to keep the people who do less than nothig from power, even if the Democrats disappoint at times. Better to be disapponted by a frieind than to get into bed with an intractable enemy. That is based on the track record when the two parties are compared in regards to our interests over the last 80 years. So, I know exactly what I am doing and why.....
BTW, I don't give a whit about Jesse or Al, I do my own thinking and it is just so rightwing to think that Black people are the only folks in America who do not think for thesmselveWhat voter suppression? Sick of hearing that. Jobs should be the number one thing you seek, Romney had a real plan and Obama doesn't care if you work or not in fact he would rather you not work!
You have been fooled!Romney? don't make me laugh, he lost not only our demographic, but every other one that mattered. The ones that he did win are losing numbers and influence anyway. So it is just a matter of time for the GOP.
In case you haven't gotten the message none of us gives a damn about the GOP.
Even less about he party of the donkey.He never had your demographic, it is 13% of the 46% he talked about. Your demographic voted based on race period! When you quit blindly following bad leadership then you may as a race ascend as you deserve.
You keep saying people told you things they didn't say.
and you are starting to spout party talking points.....
Just a friendly reminder, Credence2: we're not supposed to link to our hubs in the forums.
Ok............
Where did I characterize the GOP as saviors or even part of the solution?
There are alternatives to both yet where do the most votes go in national elections?
Why?There are none, Ross Perot did as well as anyone in modern times with his third Party back in 92. So, until viable alternatives are available, I have the choice only of the lesser of the two evils.
I didn't say just you and I was raised democrat and i know the mantra.........
as do you.
BTW ..
It's N O T my party.
I could care less about either party right now...they both suck.
"What voter suppression?
I'll bet he's not talking about the two New Black Panthers with nightsticks in front of the polling place! For some reason, that was perfectly OK, all the way to the Attorney General and the President himself.One instance and heavens knows you guys beat it to death, when compared with the vastly greater number of complaints being generated as caused by the other side. so whose zoomin who here?
What vast number Crdence with evidence where?
Video evidence like we have on the Panthers?
Huh?Holder has chastised several state legislatures in regards to this issue, Your memories are not at all related to your the moniker, the pachyderm. Do you think that we have forgotten all this? It is had been said particularely in florida that those changes in the laws were to suppress minority voter turnout,
Holder??????????????
Oh well there's some real credibility.
The more you talk the more you are spouting talking points which means you have run out of ideas.
The problem with most of you folks is that no ideas to start with, I know where this is going.
I am determined to defeat the rightwing enemy and deny it where I can, just as you do what you have to....
"Dave, this conversation can serve no useful purpose anymore"
Hal 9000 computer to astronaut Dave Bowman (2001 A Space Odyssey)Well, good luck, following democrats has not worked for your people....ever!
Complaints? Its always complaints but where is the proof?
As Barefootfae has pointed out you have been spouting the party line! I have identified as a republican my entire adult life, I will no longer do so because of how the party has shifted to the left. I doubt very seriously you would reject the democrat party for the same reason.With as far right as the GOP has moved in recent times, what is available to you now Black shirt fascism?
No, you both are wrong, I spout MY LINEYou have a distorted view of what it means to be a conservative. I am for smaller government not more. So Blackshirt fascism wouldn't work for me.
No you don't, you spout the masters line whether you want to admit it or not. Break the chains that have you enslaved and be free!
The fascist side seems to be taking root, regardless of the fact that you saythat it has nothing to do with your "conservatism". You display extreme arrogance, who do you think that you are?. With your attitutde you and your ideological kinsmen will continue to lose....So who is your master, David Duke?
How is telling you to break the chains and be free the fascist side taking root? Arrogance maybe but only because I am right. I only want to see your race lifted not continue to be stepped upon.
You say adamently that you are right, who made you this all seeing oracle, that can delve into the thoughts of other? I am neither convinced nor impressed. I had no idea that you are so "formidible'. I can make the case that those with rightwing lockjaw are also being duped and 'stepped upon" and I stack my reasoning against yours and any other rightwinger, anytime.
My ideological kinsman are winning all throughout the country. And no it isn't the GOP.
OMG!!!! You dare speak the name of DD?.......
Oh Bucky honey....you sound awfully familiar to me. Don't we know each other as radical, southern, right-wing conservatives that fervently cling to our God, our guns and our hound dogs?
"...when compared with the vastly greater number of complaints being generated as caused by the other side."
None of which were legitimate when investigated. You airily dismiss the one very real example and then complain about phantoms.
When you realize you are wrong, shouldn't you examine your motives?Well from my sources, most of these charges were substantiated. The fact that you say that NONE of them were shows a bias on the spot...
Here is your source and this is not exactly a 'liberal rag", so no talk about 'shooting the messenger'. And you know, you do not have to be prescient nor an oracle to simply read, weep and eat crow! Of course, the Right is dirty and underhanded, but who does not know that?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 … actic.html
Oh well, I guess a requirement of proper ID is 'voter suppression' in liberal la-la-land.
So to is an objection to dead people voting, or illegal aliens voting or that polling place lady who voted for Obama over and over again.BTW, most objections to conservatism are rooted in false accusations, false alliances, vague generations, and plain old BS.
I recently sat a young liberal down and challenged her to list objections to conservatism and then document her charges. She couldn't name and prove one charge. Finally, she just said, "They are all just so greedy and hateful". So I asked her to prove that charge and she stormed off.Hah! I went the other way; a discussion of liberalism with a young Berkeley student. An hour into it I finally asked him: "It sounds as if you believe you have the right to take whatever money from me that you want to, to do with as you see fit. Do I have the same right to take yours?"
It set him back for a long moment, and he was finally honest enough to answer "No.", but was unable to say why. Perhaps, given enough time and some money of his own to be taken from him, he will come to realize just what the problem is.
"Did not mean to freak anybody out, but who else is so far to the right that there is nothing left?"
Define 'right'.
Related Discussions
- 39
What makes you a Conservative or a Liberal?
by mintinfo 10 years ago
What makes you a Conservative or a Liberal?Did you make a choice based on your personal world views and ideals or did you follow the opinions of others based on race, culture, family or friends?
- 15
When will we get Obama reform? How's that hope and change working for ya?
by tonybeck 12 years ago
When will we get Obama reform? How's that hope and change working for ya?Let's face it, our president is a sociopath. Half of America has been hypnotized by this Kenyan-born phony. He's a racist, a communist and a puppet of the international bankers. He is ramming down every...
- 87
Socialism at work again?
by kirstenblog 13 years ago
This time the socialist movement in America is targeting puppy mills. That's right ladies and gentlemen, big government wants to control those puppy mills. Your god given constitutional right to own a dog is at stake here people! Force those puppy mills to give the animals adequate food, shelter...
- 40
A real example of Obama's hope and change
by tobey100 13 years ago
I've been off hubpages for a week. I've been meeting with my accountant trying to salvage what little I have left. Remember Obama's promise that if you're happy with your current health insurance you won't have to change? Well, due to the fact that some of his CHANGES kicked in...
- 69
Can someone rationally explain the Federal Government's stance on this
by tobey100 13 years ago
The Federal government has sued a sovereign state, Arizona, claiming its law and policy regarding illegal immigration usurps the authority of the Federal government and violates Federal Law and guidlines. At the same time the Federal Government turns a blind eye to those illegal immigrants...
- 11
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?
by Peter V 10 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what America was founded on or is this generally a good thing? Please support your...