Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 08:54:12 AM

Title: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 08:54:12 AM
Though a lot a backs are Democrats, a large portion are conservative democrats. 

I am a conservative libertarian, I vote as a republican but I vote my conscience. I'm curious about the size of the black conservative populatiin  going to L.S. this Fall.  How do you vote? Do you vote party line?  Are you going to join the federalist society and democrat organization (or the republican, or neither)?

I plan to Join the BLSA, the Federalists, and the Republicans. 

Who are you, and what are you, and what do you think?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 12:09:19 PM
-5 Blackness points for being conservative.
You don't know what blackness is.  You don't know who you are.  Your Identity is not a series of points that can be taken away from you.  That's the lie that the liberals have told you.  You are an individual, and a human being who can determine who you want to be and how you will be with out the input of outside forces.

But since you bring that idea up what are the requirements the liberals, and the democrats have given you to become black.  I'm not familiar with the application process because I was born black.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.



Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 27, 2007, 01:00:35 PM
-5 points to whoever for being a conservative.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: naturallybeyoutiful on May 27, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
I vote my conscience.

Me, too!
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Booyakasha2 on May 27, 2007, 04:42:38 PM
Thats whats wrong with liberals/Democrats these days... all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 27, 2007, 04:43:49 PM
Well said Mr. G.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Booyakasha2 on May 27, 2007, 04:48:25 PM
no doubtz.  As a corollary, truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word...It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...sc
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 27, 2007, 04:56:25 PM
Aw, I like Gwiz now.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: jimfoolery on May 27, 2007, 05:08:16 PM
That's the lie that the liberals have told you.

*rubs hands together sinisterly*

It's all part of our masterplan, my pretties.

*cackles*

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 06:21:14 PM
What eats me up the most is thier little social welfare system.  A system that has opression built in.  If you collect food stamps, or section 8 housing you are limited to the amount of money you are able to make on your own.  There is nothing wrong with a limit but they always set that limit at a point where people can't possibly support themselves on.

Then they look down on those who would train poeple to be independent, and self sufficient.  If everyone, who could, became self sustaining the libs would be out of an adjenda.  They can't let that happen.  So they establish section 8 to help people get into a position where there is no longer hope.  They create food stamps where people are permanently dependent on government services.  If they were to raise the food stamp amount it would be under the condition that those people could not work or be trained for better work.

I had a homless friend who could not find a decent job because the shelter he used had a 4:30 pm curfew.  4:30!!  If he wanted to work past that he had to either pay for a bed, or sleep in his car.  He couldn't afford the bed untill he got a job.  He couldn't get a job without and address therefore he could not sleep in his car.  He stayed at the shelter restricted from working.  I found him a Caddy job which didn't require a home address.  I made him self sufficient, he had food, and he had his dignity.  Eventually he could afford an apartment he shared. 

They want an underclass.  This whole thing is deliberate.  The victims?  Poor Blacks, other Poor Minorities, and yes even Poor Whites; The middle class who pay the tax burden to fund thier scandelous programs; and The non elitist liberal rich who are made to feel guilty for thier fortune.  They just hate the rich, because they cant feed off the rich like the worthless paracites they are...
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 27, 2007, 07:49:47 PM
Aw, I like Gwiz now.

I was thinking the same thing. Gwiz is welcome to drop by my apartment and have some free beer anytime.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 27, 2007, 07:58:31 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html)

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html)

Read these, foolios. The argument against this has already been hashed out.

And yes, there is a (very strong) argument against this.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 27, 2007, 07:59:59 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html)

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html)

Read these, foolios. The argument against this has already been hashed out.

And yes, there is a (very strong) argument against this.

Please specify--what is the antecedent of "this"?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Denny Crane on May 27, 2007, 08:01:34 PM
What eats me up the most is thier little social welfare system.  A system that has opression built in.  If you collect food stamps, or section 8 housing you are limited to the amount of money you are able to make on your own.  There is nothing wrong with a limit but they always set that limit at a point where people can't possibly support themselves on.

Then they look down on those who would train poeple to be independent, and self sufficient.  If everyone, who could, became self sustaining the libs would be out of an adjenda.  They can't let that happen.  So they establish section 8 to help people get into a position where there is no longer hope.  They create food stamps where people are permanently dependent on government services.  If they were to raise the food stamp amount it would be under the condition that those people could not work or be trained for better work.

I had a homless friend who could not find a decent job because the shelter he used had a 4:30 pm curfew.  4:30!!  If he wanted to work past that he had to either pay for a bed, or sleep in his car.  He couldn't afford the bed untill he got a job.  He couldn't get a job without and address therefore he could not sleep in his car.  He stayed at the shelter restricted from working.  I found him a Caddy job which didn't require a home address.  I made him self sufficient, he had food, and he had his dignity.  Eventually he could afford an apartment he shared. 

They want an underclass.  This whole thing is deliberate.  The victims?  Poor Blacks, other Poor Minorities, and yes even Poor Whites; The middle class who pay the tax burden to fund thier scandelous programs; and The non elitist liberal rich who are made to feel guilty for thier fortune.  They just hate the rich, because they cant feed off the rich like the worthless paracites they are...

I'm more conservative than many other minorities, but keep in mind that the welfare limits you're accusing of forcing people to remain in the hole they're in is the result of cutbacks and limitations instituted in large part by conservatives who are opposed to the welfare system itself.  If liberals had complete control over the welfare system and did not have to compromise it in any way to accomodate the conservative agenda, the system would be more generous than it is now.  

Liberals may be responsible for the creation of the welfare system, but conservatives play their part in making sure it's limited and compromised.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 27, 2007, 08:03:04 PM
 

Liberals may be responsible for the creation of the welfare system, but conservatives play their part in making sure it's limited and compromised.

Thank God. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 27, 2007, 08:08:12 PM
Sure you're using the correct word, fluffy?

At any rate, my service here is done. Read the linked threads. And this:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3891&sec_id=3891 (http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3891&sec_id=3891)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 08:20:05 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,72835.0.html)

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,80996.0.html)

Read these, foolios. The argument against this has already been hashed out.

And yes, there is a (very strong) argument against this.
Argument against what?

You present something about a racist congressional black caucus which is Democrat, and Liberal.

You present something about Gay Republicans.  Are you comparing Being Black with Being Homosexual?  Where are the similarities?  You can start at birth where one of my clients last year was an 87 year old black woman.  She couldn't produce a birth certificate for the settlement of the sale of her house.  Back then they didn't keep good records of the black babies born in Georgia.  She wasn't even sure in exactly what year she was born.  How is that similar to being gay?  87 years later she was reminded by some "thing" that they felt, back then and now, that they could have done without her existance.  It still hasn't been fixed so the system is still in place.





Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 27, 2007, 08:23:39 PM
You didn't read the threads, did you?

The issue comes up in both of them.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 27, 2007, 08:32:05 PM
I don't know how to read... Splain it too me.  Sum it up.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 27, 2007, 08:54:46 PM
Now I wish I'd've applied to Dickinson.  I think I'd enjoy going to school with you, Gwiz...
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 27, 2007, 11:52:15 PM
I am a moderate, I do not like liberal Democrats and I dispise far right Republicans...they both have it all wrong.  Far lefties want Socialism...wrong!!!  Far righties want black people back on plantations...wrong (for me)!  We need more common sense politicians. I intentionally vote split ticket in most elections.  If one party has total control we are d*cked. 

I think some FS'ers might piss me off, but some of them have good ideas. As such, I probably won't join, just because I have 2-3 groups I already want to actively be a part of for networking reasons. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 06:10:51 AM
Why is socialism wrong? Because the CEO of IBM would only make $600m a year instead of $1b?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: bamf on May 28, 2007, 06:12:29 AM
Why is socialism wrong? Because the CEO of IBM would only make $600m a year instead of $1b?

TITCR ... welcome to the US, where people STILL confuse socialism with communism.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 06:21:05 AM
Socialism is not a good idea, because if the government controls all industry, where is the drive for effiency.  Big bureaucracy just leads to big slowdown.

There are certain things the government should have a hand in, and certain things it shouldn't.  IMHO
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 06:22:01 AM
Why is socialism wrong? Because the CEO of IBM would only make $600m a year instead of $1b?

TINTCR....I'm not talking about Communism, although I'm sure some on the far left would be all in favor of that.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 06:32:01 AM
Actually you are. Socialism != government controls all industry. That is, by definition, communism.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 06:47:32 AM
Actually you are. Socialism != government controls all industry. That is, by definition, communism.

I'm sorry sir, but Communism is when all facets of production are controlled by the worker class.  In ideal Communism, there is NO government.

Please read Karl Marx.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 06:57:50 AM
I get uneasy when government gets too involved in anything.  I understant that at times it may be necessary but most things are only good in moderation.

Socialism is an economic system like capitalism.  Communism is a political system like democracy.  Neither have to do directly with government control.

The soviet Union was a Republic of Socialist States run by a Communist (like) organization.  The CEO Of IBM would be Guarranteed his job,  his income, and his social status.  There would be no tax because revenue for government would be taken out before the people are paid.  The CEO would most likely be in a high position in the commuist party which would give him certain privleges and say in public policy.  The soviet union was a 1 party system due to the vigilance of Lennin, and stalin.  No other parties survived.  1 party meant unrestricted government control due to party boss greed for money and power. 1 party mean government contol of all industry due to public policy established by the likes of the CEO of IBM.



Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 06:58:16 AM
Please don't blindly equate Marxism to Communism, it just shows you have no frigging idea what you're talking about. Karl Marx represents just one of many theoretical types of communism. And that wasn't even the topic here, it was socialism.

Quote
I get uneasy when government gets too involved in anything.

This is (yet another) thing I find weird about Americans, although I sort of see it in an historical context. You are more uneasy about government taking control of important institutions in your life than you are in share holders and CEOs having control of the same things... Is there any logic in that? Do you generally believe billionaire shareholders to be more ethical and just in their control of America than the politicians would be? Not saying it's wrong, just looking for what lies behind it.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 07:04:08 AM
Please don't blindly equate Marxism to Communism, it just shows you have no frigging idea what you're talking about. Karl Marx represents just one of many theoretical types of communism. And that wasn't even the topic here, it was socialism.

Quote
I get uneasy when government gets too involved in anything.

This is (yet another) thing I find weird about Americans, although I sort of see it in an historical context. You are more uneasy about government taking control of important institutions in your life than you are in share holders and CEOs having control of the same things... Is there any logic in that? Do you generally believe billionaire shareholders to be more ethical and just in their control of America than the politicians would be? Not saying it's wrong, just looking for what lies behind it.

I'm so glad you blindly cling to the 20th Century version of Communism.  Oh pray tell NYU man, who first wrote about the theory of Communism then?

PS...I studied both Government and History in college. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 07:05:36 AM
PPS  The Stalin/Zedong versions of Communism were not true Communism.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 07:07:47 AM
Please don't blindly equate Marxism to Communism, it just shows you have no frigging idea what you're talking about. Karl Marx represents just one of many theoretical types of communism. And that wasn't even the topic here, it was socialism.

Quote
I get uneasy when government gets too involved in anything.

This is (yet another) thing I find weird about Americans, although I sort of see it in an historical context. You are more uneasy about government taking control of important institutions in your life than you are in share holders and CEOs having control of the same things... Is there any logic in that? Do you generally believe billionaire shareholders to be more ethical and just in their control of America than the politicians would be? Not saying it's wrong, just looking for what lies behind it.

Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing.  In AMERICA, if you read the Constitution (you know the thing that spelled out our government), the government is in charge of providing common defense and promoting general welfare...not controlling production and distribution of goods and services.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 07:09:15 AM
What does it matter who wrote the first theory of communism? It's not like ANY country is run based on theories from the 19th century, so why would you make this assumption from any socialist government?

And why do you keep talking about communism, when the question was socialism?

I'm sure you were a very good scholarship boy in college.

Quote
Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing.

Answering a question with another question is usually a sign of defeat, don't you think? Why don't you rather answer what I asked first?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 07:30:06 AM
Ok wanker...I'm about to head to the beach, so I'm going to resolve that we agree to disagree. The country I live in (America) was not founded on the tenets of socialism...our founding fathers were capitalists.  So is socialism wrong, that's up to you to decide.  Capitalism works for me, because it rewards hard work and promotes effiency within the market.

I worked hard to get where I am, so my salary should be commensurate with my hard work.  Thank you and good night.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Journeyman on May 28, 2007, 07:32:17 AM
PS...if you don't like what we write on the black CONSERVATIVE thread.... go start the "who knows what you are" SOCIALISTS thread
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 07:33:04 AM
Heh, sorry, you make me laugh. I like you :)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: bamf on May 28, 2007, 07:33:20 AM
Please don't blindly equate Marxism to Communism, it just shows you have no frigging idea what you're talking about. Karl Marx represents just one of many theoretical types of communism. And that wasn't even the topic here, it was socialism.

Quote
I get uneasy when government gets too involved in anything.

This is (yet another) thing I find weird about Americans, although I sort of see it in an historical context. You are more uneasy about government taking control of important institutions in your life than you are in share holders and CEOs having control of the same things... Is there any logic in that? Do you generally believe billionaire shareholders to be more ethical and just in their control of America than the politicians would be? Not saying it's wrong, just looking for what lies behind it.

Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing.  In AMERICA, if you read the Constitution (you know the thing that spelled out our government), the government is in charge of providing common defense and promoting general welfare...not controlling production and distribution of goods and services.

do you think it promotes the "general welfare" to let huge corporations control so much wealth while the middle class is systematically dismantled?  Socialism is not ALWAYS complete control of an economy, but it is a safeguard against ongoing exploitation and concentration of wealth.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: bamf on May 28, 2007, 07:34:30 AM
Ok wanker...I'm about to head to the beach, so I'm going to resolve that we agree to disagree. The country I live in (America) was not founded on the tenets of socialism...our founding fathers were capitalists. 

my little brother is looking for colleges right now, could you tell me which one you went to so I can tell him not to go there?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Denny Crane on May 28, 2007, 07:36:55 AM
I worked hard to get where I am, so my salary should be commensurate with my hard work.  Thank you and good night.

I'm an ardent capitalist as well, but that's a very  big should.  Capitalism  (as implemented IRL) is not perfect.  Also, salaries in capitalist societies rarely reflect "hard work".  They reflect the supply/demand of the services desired (ie: doctors are highly valued and generally rare, so they're paid a lot.  Janitors are also highly valued, but there are many more people who can do a janitor's job, so they're paid substantially less).

Also, soldiers work hard every day, probably harder than most, but are paid a paltry salary because there are a lot of them and because there is normally a steady supply of would-be soldiers.  When the supply started to dwindle after the war in Iraq, what did the Pentagon do to attract more recruits?  Raised salaries/bonuses/benefits.  
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 07:47:52 AM
And why do you keep talking about communism, when the question was socialism?

...Perhaps it is because Socialism, in practice, amounts to half-assed communism, and like communism, it fails in most of the places it is instituted.

Quote
Quote
Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing.

Answering a question with another question is usually a sign of defeat, don't you think? Why don't you rather answer what I asked first?
[/quote]

You didn't ask me a question, so I'll ask it: Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing?

do you think it promotes the "general welfare" to let huge corporations control so much wealth while the middle class is systematically dismantled?  Socialism is not ALWAYS complete control of an economy, but it is a safeguard against ongoing exploitation and concentration of wealth.


Let me comment:

1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

2) The middle class is being dismantled? Are you sure? Come to NJ, we're ALLL middle-class here.

3) Socialism is, in practice, not ever the complete control of the economy, but usually the government manages to create more than it's share of harmful monopolies. Also the wealth re-distribution schemes are more likely to create a large lower-class and shrink the middle-class  than capitalism, IMHO. British Socialism killed industry in the UK, and still has lasting effects today.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 07:54:38 AM
I worked hard to get where I am, so my salary should be commensurate with my hard work.  Thank you and good night.

I'm an ardent capitalist as well, but that's a very  big should.  Capitalism  (as implemented IRL) is not perfect.  Also, salaries in capitalist societies rarely reflect "hard work".  They reflect the supply/demand of the services desired (ie: doctors are highly valued and generally rare, so they're paid a lot.  Janitors are also highly valued, but there are many more people who can do a janitor's job, so they're paid substantially less).{/quote]

Salaries don't reflect hard work, they reflect the value of work, and also compensate people for pursing additional qualifications. Hard work is rewarded in those who work to innovate and lead. The man who invents the telephone (Graham Bell), ends up filthy rich. It also rewards the plumber who works more hours...

Quote
Also, soldiers work hard every day, probably harder than most, but are paid a paltry salary because there are a lot of them and because there is normally a steady supply of would-be soldiers.  When the supply started to dwindle after the war in Iraq, what did the Pentagon do to attract more recruits?  Raised salaries/bonuses/benefits.  

There aren't a lot of officers though. Officers require more education and training, but they're still paid crap compared to people of their education level in industry. The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: bamf on May 28, 2007, 07:57:19 AM


2) The middle class is being dismantled? Are you sure? Come to NJ, we're ALLL middle-class here.


a little busy so I can't completely respond right now, but let me just say
THIS IS THE PROBLEM!
I know plenty of people in Jersey, they all drive nice cars and have expensive clothes and shoes, etc. ... that is not middle class.  Just because everyone around you has the same *&^%, that doesn't mean you are middle class.  Middle class is somewhere between what you find in the 'burbs of Jersey has and what you find in the inner city ... decent jobs (that you don't necessarily need a 4 year college education for) that allow people to make a decent living, support their family, take a vacation once in a while.  Middle class is not a McMansion, 3 SUVs and a pool.  That is upper class.  Unfortunately the McMansion looks like middle class because America has created the hyper-upper class.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 07:57:32 AM
I love capitalism.  I love the fact that anyone can enter this country with not a penny to his name and with hardwork, and good fortune make a decent living.  It's flaws are what make it so appealing.  The shareholders are not some unknown shadowy figure behing a curtain.  The Shareholders are the workers the pension holders, everyone with a 401(k).  If you open a savings account at a commercial bank you participate in the markets to get your interest.  Not only is this a system run by the people but it is completely voluntary.  If you don't invest you don't have to be involved. Corporations are not just moved by the shareholder they are also moved by the stakeholders.  Competition in a capitalist society requires thate each participant maintain a positive image.  Public Activism effects public/private industry, as much as it effects government.  Just ask Imus how his masters reacted when his activities started to reflect negatively on thier image.


Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 07:58:11 AM
...Perhaps it is because Socialism, in practice, amounts to half-assed communism, and like communism, it fails in most of the places it is instituted.

Well, I think we both know there's no strictly capitalist countries just like there's no strictly socialist countries out there. Even America is a mixed system, albeit quite far to the capitalist side. Literally every country in the world employs a governmental strategy that is more socialist than America, and you know what - the rest of the world isn't falling to pieces, like you claim it is. We're doing pretty good. I'd argue better than Americans on average.

Quote
You didn't ask me a question, so I'll ask it: Why should I believe that the government controlling the economy would be a good thing?
I did actually, and this was it; Do you generally believe billionaire shareholders to be more ethical and just in their control of America than the politicians would be?

However, I'd gladly answer your question. You should trust the government more than the CEOs, because the government might at least have a tiny bit of interest in the welfare of the general people, where at the CEOs only motivation is income, profit and share value.

It's a question because IT ASKS FOR YOUR OPINION AND THERE'S A QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF IT

Quote
1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

Do you think they stopped the food because they love Fido too much, or do you think they stopped it because they were about to get assraped with both criminal and civil law suits if they kept it going? If you think people control corporations, you're a bigger fool than I ever imagined. Remember Enron?


Quote
3) Socialism is, in practice, not ever the complete control of the economy, but usually the government manages to create more than it's share of harmful monopolies. Also the wealth re-distribution schemes are more likely to create a large lower-class and shrink the middle-class  than capitalism, IMHO. British Socialism killed industry in the UK, and still has lasting effects today.

The problem with this is that you see it as a black and white scenario, you're either capitalist or you're socialist, which isn't the case, even in America. MediCare is a socialistic system etc. And socialism didn't kill industry in the UK, incompetent leadership did. UK is still a way more socialist country than the US is, and they're doing good. We (Norway) are several steps further towards socialist (a few more than I'd prefer actually), and we do extremely well. This is also the situation most over the world.

Soviet failed because they tried to apply the extremist version of it, just like the US would go down the drain if they tried to apply an extremist version of capitalism.

And you need to realize you're educating yourself to be working class. The better paid half of it, certainly but as a lawyer you'll never be in the upper echelon who reap the benefits of an extremist capitalist society.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Denny Crane on May 28, 2007, 07:59:41 AM
I worked hard to get where I am, so my salary should be commensurate with my hard work.  Thank you and good night.

I'm an ardent capitalist as well, but that's a very  big should.  Capitalism  (as implemented IRL) is not perfect.  Also, salaries in capitalist societies rarely reflect "hard work".  They reflect the supply/demand of the services desired (ie: doctors are highly valued and generally rare, so they're paid a lot.  Janitors are also highly valued, but there are many more people who can do a janitor's job, so they're paid substantially less).

Salaries don't reflect hard work, they reflect the value of work, and also compensate people for pursing additional qualifications. Hard work is rewarded in those who work to innovate and lead. The man who invents the telephone (Graham Bell), ends up filthy rich. It also rewards the plumber who works more hours...

Quote
Also, soldiers work hard every day, probably harder than most, but are paid a paltry salary because there are a lot of them and because there is normally a steady supply of would-be soldiers.  When the supply started to dwindle after the war in Iraq, what did the Pentagon do to attract more recruits?  Raised salaries/bonuses/benefits.  

There aren't a lot of officers though. Officers require more education and training, but they're still paid crap compared to people of their education level in industry. The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.

That's true, officers do get paid crap, though that's because there's still an availabile supply of people willing to be officers.  Also, the military is tricky since so many soldiers and officers live on-base in subsidized or completely free housing, so their CoL's are much lower than if they were living off-base tending to their own expenses.  
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 08:04:13 AM
Quote
The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.

Not at all, the military is a perfect example of many people willing to put something above the bottom line on their paychecks when choosing employment. Every single officer with combat experience could get five times their army salary by signing up for a private contractor, private security companies etc, but they make the choice to stay in the Army because they believe in what they do and the cause they have dedicated their life to.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 08:10:52 AM
The problem with this is that you see it as a black and white scenario, you're either capitalist or you're socialist, which isn't the case, even in America. MediCare is a socialistic system etc. And socialism didn't kill industry in the UK, incompetent leadership did. UK is still a way more socialist country than the US is, and they're doing good. We (Norway) are several steps further towards socialist (a few more than I'd prefer actually), and we do extremely well. This is also the situation most over the world.

Soviet failed because they tried to apply the extremist version of it, just like the US would go down the drain if they tried to apply an extremist version of capitalism.

And you need to realize you're educating yourself to be working class. The better paid half of it, certainly but as a lawyer you'll never be in the upper echelon who reap the benefits of an extremist capitalist society.
He's got a point.  Due to the human factor we can't have an effective system with out a little soocial welfare.  There are always those who cannot compete for physical, mental, or historically social reasons.  That is what I was implying when I stated (to the effect) That at times The government needs to intervene.

Lawyers have always been in the middle class. To reach the top Youl will need to Join the Military, Go to business School and then conquer something (like Fidel).  A 100% capitalist society would look something like the feudal life in the middle ages. Or closer to the enlightenment days.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 28, 2007, 08:11:53 AM

I'm so glad you blindly cling to the 20th Century version of Communism.  Oh pray tell NYU man, who first wrote about the theory of Communism then?

PS...I studied both Government and History in college. 

f-ing hell. These things never exist in their pure, original forms. No ideology. None.

If you actually studied history, as you say you did, you'd know that. htfh.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 08:13:07 AM
Truth! I don't really think anyone wants that, well nobody intelligent enough to listen to anyway. I certainly do not consider myself a socialist either, but there are things that would benefit from a bit more socialist attitude. Health care comes to mind, keeping people alive and healthy should be a basic ambition for any civilized country.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 08:17:06 AM
Health care comes to mind, keeping people alive and healthy should be a basic ambition for any civilized country.

I agree, which is why I oppose Nationalized/Socialized Heathcare.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 28, 2007, 08:18:46 AM

Let me comment:

1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

Yeah, it wasn't quite that simple.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 08:25:19 AM

Let me comment:

1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

Yeah, it wasn't quite that simple.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.
Government doesn't react any faster (ex: Slave Trade) often the goverment (in a democractic republic like ours) only reacts when the public reacts.   
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 08:30:07 AM
Quote
The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.

Not at all, the military is a perfect example of many people willing to put something above the bottom line on their paychecks when choosing employment. Every single officer with combat experience could get five times their army salary by signing up for a private contractor, private security companies etc, but they make the choice to stay in the Army because they believe in what they do and the cause they have dedicated their life to.

And yet, these people doing something so honorable are exploited by the government because of it... If that isn't an argument against government control, then it is at least an example of how the government is no better than the corporate world.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Big Tobacco is a POOR example.  At this point, people know the health risks of smoking and choose to do so anyway. The government isn't your mommy, it shouldn't protect you from yourself.

And Shareholders DO care about Fido dying, because when Fido dies, they will get lawsuit-pwn3d.

Forget the shareholders though. When the story about the dog food hit the airwaves, every pet owner in america stopped buying the affected pet-foods. End of market for ALPO. Hence, the consumers control the market -- but only can truly exert that control when...

Quote
Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.

...a cartel doesn't exist, and Oil is a cartel. Sure ExxonMobile would REALLY like BP out of the market, but the fact of the matter is, that ExxonMobile cannot buy Oil any cheaper than BP can. ExxonMobile cannot produce gasoline any cheaper than BP can... etc.  The oil-exporting countries control the price of oil and the price of gas.  The oil industry is lacking in competition because of the nature of the market.

If you really want to induce competition and lower gas prices, go to Ford with 100,000 of your best  friends and promise to buy any car they make that runs on pure ethanol...
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 28, 2007, 08:44:57 AM
Big tobacco doesn't get lawsuit pwned?

Also, if people are as weary of the exorberant price of gas, then why don't we mobilize? Oh yeah, it's because things aren't as simple as a capitalist would make it out to be. People are still buying SUV's at a greater rate than hybrids; alternative fuels are still marginal. Yet most, if not all, oil companies are raking in billions per quarter alone. And don't even get me started about the slow market reaction to global warming (which i'm sure you don't even believe).

Answer these questions:

1. Do you think people are sick of paying as much as they do for gas?
2. Why don't we collectively do the things necessary to change that via the system as it works (ie, stop buying gas, start demanding more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles)?

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 08:48:17 AM
I agree, which is why I oppose Nationalized/Socialized Heathcare.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you think BigMed is doing a good job keeping people (other than the affluent) in good shape now. And if you seriously think that, not just trying to argue.. well.

Quote
And yet, these people doing something so honorable are exploited by the government because of it... If that isn't an argument against government control, then it is at least an example of how the government is no better than the corporate world.

How does the government exploit soldiers?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on May 28, 2007, 08:49:11 AM
I don't vote.  I just complain about *&^%
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Denny Crane on May 28, 2007, 08:50:29 AM
I don't vote.  I just complain about *&^%

The American way?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 08:58:43 AM
Big tobacco doesn't get lawsuit pwned?

Also, if people are as weary of the exorberant price of gas, then why don't we mobilize? Oh yeah, it's because things aren't as simple as a capitalist would make it out to be. People are still buying SUV's at a greater rate than hybrids; alternative fuels are still marginal. Yet most, if not all, oil companies are raking in billions per quarter alone. And don't even get me started about the slow market reaction to global warming (which i'm sure you don't even believe).

Answer these questions:

1. Do you think people are sick of paying as much as they do for gas?
2. Why don't we collectively do the things necessary to change that via the system as it works (ie, stop buying gas, start demanding more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles)?


1. No they aren't.  That is good for the Capitalist, and the socialist.  The fed/state governments make more money from tax revenue on oil than the oil companies.  That tax revenue goes to fund government intervention and socaial welfare systems.

2. Because of #1 we're aren't fed up with prices. In fact if you ever took economics you would know that we are no where near the point where price will effect demand significantly.  Also note that we have some of the lowest fuel prices in the world. 

As for global warming.  We can't even keep from killing babies now, in abortion.  Who cares if the planet catches fire there won't be anyone to enjoy it if we keep self exterminating.  It's not really self extermination is it?  If the government begins to sanction abortion and human embrio testing it will most likely be the poor who get exterminated, or sold as test tube slaves for scientific experiments.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 09:11:16 AM
I liked you until the baby killing part, which is just ridiculous.

That being said, what's important to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter if people are fed up with gas prices or not. The inconvenience you would have to go through in order to 'protest' against increased gas prices means you won't realistically be able to. Better example of the same issue is health care where essentially BigMed without governmental restrictions pretty much can do whatever they want, because people aren't going to go "Nah, medicine is too expensive, so I'm gonna protest by dying". No. So as long as the product you're selling is important enough, and the other people selling comparable products are in the same line as you, supply and demand doesn't apply. Even Adam Smith actually knew this, the supply and demand thesis is somewhat dependent on an equality in power between the actors, and the corporate world versus individual consumers is nowhere near equal.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: The F-cktard Express on May 28, 2007, 09:12:28 AM
Okay, dude.  :D

Don't know where you live, but I can't think of anyone who is happy paying what they are for gas, as well as paying for the increased costs of goods associated with higher gas prices.

I can't figure out why people aren't doing more, but I suppose it's indicative of how little the typical american is active politically; too many other things to worry about/keep them occupied.

lol for taking economic theory seriously.  :D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 09:48:10 AM
I liked you until the baby killing part, which is just ridiculous.

That being said, what's important to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter if people are fed up with gas prices or not. The inconvenience you would have to go through in order to 'protest' against increased gas prices means you won't realistically be able to. Better example of the same issue is health care where essentially BigMed without governmental restrictions pretty much can do whatever they want, because people aren't going to go "Nah, medicine is too expensive, so I'm gonna protest by dying". No. So as long as the product you're selling is important enough, and the other people selling comparable products are in the same line as you, supply and demand doesn't apply. Even Adam Smith actually knew this, the supply and demand thesis is somewhat dependent on an equality in power between the actors, and the corporate world versus individual consumers is nowhere near equal.
That's elasticity.  Price elasticity, supply, elasticity, demand elasticity.  That can be measured mathematically but I didn't want to get into it. You're right on the first part that measure of  opportunity cost.  They compare the values and choose the one that is least offensive.

Quote
I can't figure out why people aren't doing more, but I suppose it's indicative of how little the typical american is active politically; too many other things to worry about/keep them occupied.

That because your're dealing with two different forces. Collecive psychology Vs. Individual Psychology.  I don't know enough to argue it but I know enough to know that the collective (or crowd psychology) is a powerful force.  Powerful enough that most economic theory is based on the reactions of the colective, not the individual.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Catherine Morland on May 28, 2007, 10:08:17 AM
Quote
The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.

Not at all, the military is a perfect example of many people willing to put something above the bottom line on their paychecks when choosing employment. Every single officer with combat experience could get five times their army salary by signing up for a private contractor, private security companies etc, but they make the choice to stay in the Army because they believe in what they do and the cause they have dedicated their life to.

Actually, this really isn't true. Officers leave the military at a very high rate to take on those higher-paying private jobs. And those who stay are usually not doing it because they "believe" in something. There are other factors like job security, the ability to live in exotic places, and an institutionalized mentality (what would I do if I left sort of thing).

Meanwhile - Gwiz why did you post this here instead of BLSD?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 10:17:34 AM
Actually, this really isn't true. Officers leave the military at a very high rate to take on those higher-paying private jobs. And those who stay are usually not doing it because they "believe" in something. There are other factors like job security, the ability to live in exotic places, and an institutionalized mentality (what would I do if I left sort of thing).

That really doesn't reflect my experience. Of the American soldiers I've spent time with, a huge majority of them do it for the people and the country, and they wouldn't leave their job for all the money in the world. I realize I've only met a fraction of the Army, so could be that overall you are correct, but it certainly doesn't apply to all of them.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 10:20:59 AM
Meanwhile - Gwiz why did you post this here instead of BLSD?
I wanted it to stand out.  I think admitted Black Conservatives are a minority in our community.  I believe as an overall culture African Americaks are more conservative than people think and lean more toward the conservative Democrat or libertarian side of things.

I wanted to see if I could draw some of that out and figured having it in a "Self Defined Minority" area would make it easier for people to speak up.

I also wanted non-black Americans to feel open to speaking... along with the ocassional Norwegian  ;) 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 10:22:10 AM
I always volunteer my 2 cents, whether it's wanted or not  ;D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 10:30:26 AM
Actually, this really isn't true. Officers leave the military at a very high rate to take on those higher-paying private jobs. And those who stay are usually not doing it because they "believe" in something. There are other factors like job security, the ability to live in exotic places, and an institutionalized mentality (what would I do if I left sort of thing).

That really doesn't reflect my experience. Of the American soldiers I've spent time with, a huge majority of them do it for the people and the country, and they wouldn't leave their job for all the money in the world. I realize I've only met a fraction of the Army, so could be that overall you are correct, but it certainly doesn't apply to all of them.
I'm an Army Vet.  Airborne! Whooah!
It goes both ways.  I believe a majority of soldiers (and others) feel a genuine need to be there in times of crisis.  Even when they leave for bigger pay if it was needed some of those people would drop everything to come back.

I think there is a general sense of selflessness in soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that most civilians could never understand. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 10:34:40 AM
So am I, glad to see I'm not the only one around here :) Actually, I've found a few others too.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 11:22:19 AM
1. Do you think people are sick of paying as much as they do for gas?
Absolutely, but the rich people who can afford it still want to drive gas guzzlers... Oil is a cartel. I already stated that. They are somewhat immune to market pressure because there is no other option. I won't argue against myself. Sorry.

Quote
2. Why don't we collectively do the things necessary to change that via the system as it works (ie, stop buying gas, start demanding more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles)?
Hyundais sell like hotcakes and Hybrids are popular as well. There is a start-up company in the funding stages right now that has developed an engine that can run on any of a number of fuels, from ethanol to gasoline to diesel and any mix in between -- the market IS moving to correct the problem, but we require new technology to do so.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you think BigMed is doing a good job keeping people (other than the affluent) in good shape now. And if you seriously think that, not just trying to argue.. well.

"BIGMED" does a good job for most people, actually. Medicine in THIS country is actually pretty excellent. The insurance companies suck, but even they aren't that bad. The complaint is that some people aren't covered. Lower-end employees or the unemployed -- who don't have corporate-sponsored medical plans. There was a discussion about this elsewhere and I am not interested in re-hashing here. I think that socialized  medicine will be worse for this country as a whole, than any system we have now.

My uncle in the UK was told by NHS that even though his heart stopped and he almost died, he couldn't have a pace-maker. They were pretty sure it could happen again, but the wait to get the procedure was long, and they didn't consider him a priority (he was in his 80s, and I guess they figured he's going to die soon anyway...). They told him not to drive, in case his heart stopped again in the car, and sent him on his  way.

Whether it is the government or an insurance company paying for it, it doesn't matter. It will always be about the bottom line.

Better example of the same issue is health care where essentially BigMed without governmental restrictions pretty much can do whatever they want, because people aren't going to go "Nah, medicine is too expensive, so I'm gonna protest by dying". No. So as long as the product you're selling is important enough, and the other people selling comparable products are in the same line as you, supply and demand doesn't apply.

That's not really how it works. Right now the problem is that the consumer of medical care has no choice regarding the provider. By making the government the provider, you only exacerbate the problem. Right now the VAST majority of Americans with Medical Insurance get it through their job. The company picks a plan that fits the company's financial requirements -- and you'll take it because it's cheap enough for you and you don't expect to get screwed in the deal, but when *&^% hits the fan and Blue Cross says you can't go to the Doctor you want, or that you can't have a procedure, you have no choices.

What we NEED is to hand the CHOICE over to the consumer. Instead of the insurance companies going after large corporate accounts, make them sell their services to the individuals who actually consume the medical care. If Blue Cross won't pay for your pace-maker, I'm sure that AFLAC will step up -- why? because you'll continue to pay them afterwards, and all of your friends and family will go to AFLAC as well, because AFLAC took care of you.

If we nationalize healthcare, then there is only one choice. If the government says no, you're either screwed, or you better be rich enough to go to another country for care.


Start a thread about healthcare, or PM me a link and we can go more in-depth about it.

I liked you until the baby killing part, which is just ridiculous.

I'll send you some biology text books and after you read them we can continue that discussion.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 28, 2007, 11:32:56 AM
"BIGMED" does a good job for most people, actually. Medicine in THIS country is actually pretty excellent. The insurance companies suck, but even they aren't that bad. The complaint is that some people aren't covered. Lower-end employees or the unemployed -- who don't have corporate-sponsored medical plans. There was a discussion about this elsewhere and I am not interested in re-hashing here. I think that socialized  medicine will be worse for this country as a whole, than any system we have now.
You're of course free to think that, but it really seems hard to understand why. And I really don't see how you can feel 'BIGMED' is taking good care of you, you are the World's biggest cash cow when it comes to health, and they're milking you like it's giving them a bender. If BIGMED was taking good care of you, people wouldn't be smuggling medicines by truckloads from Canada. American medicine at that.

Quote
My uncle in the UK was told by NHS that even though his heart stopped and he almost died, he couldn't have a pace-maker. They were pretty sure it could happen again, but the wait to get the procedure was long, and they didn't consider him a priority (he was in his 80s, and I guess they figured he's going to die soon anyway...). They told him not to drive, in case his heart stopped again in the car, and sent him on his  way.
Yeah, like an 80 year old would be first in line for a heart transplant in the US. bull, and you know it. And the fact that the UK has 'socialized medicine' doesn't mean there aren't privatized options available for those willing to pay (like you do in the US). They have both options, which means that the people who can't afford privatized health care still has a decent option to go to, unlike the American MediCare which honestly is a shame.

Quote
Whether it is the government or an insurance company paying for it, it doesn't matter. It will always be about the bottom line.
Yes, but the government's bottom line is about making the ends meet. The insurance company's bottom line is about buying another Bentley and a yacht in St. Barts. If you question that, you're the perfect corporate client.


Quote
That's not really how it works. Right now the problem is that the consumer of medical care has no choice regarding the provider. By making the government the provider, you only exacerbate the problem.
Actually, you don't as I illustrated above. If you make the government the provider, you have one option there. Then you have private health care as a more expensive option for those who want that. You would get the options you specifically said you didn't have at the moment.


Quote
If we nationalize healthcare, then there is only one choice. If the government says no, you're either screwed, or you better be rich enough to go to another country for care.

This is where you, and I expect most Americans end up way out in the woods when it comes to governmental services like health care. It's not like they outlaw private practice etc, it's a supplement, not a replacement. Norway has almost-free health service for everyone. Yet thousands of people, like myself, have a private practitioner doctor. I have had several surgeries, all at private hospitals, paying my own way. It isn't either this or that, you can actually have this cake and eat it too. Isn't that brilliant?

Quote
I'll send you some biology text books and after you read them we can continue that discussion.
The fact that you assume people are uneducated for disagreeing with you is so ridiculous and arrogant that literally anything you say from here on is worthless junk. Go slap yourself. Oh, and, pamphlets from "Pro-Life" organizations aren't textbooks btw.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 28, 2007, 11:34:28 AM
I would like to have a cat provided it barked. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 28, 2007, 11:49:07 AM
I would like to have a cat provided it barked. 
a little bit of  ;D could make that happen
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 28, 2007, 09:42:24 PM
Yeah, like an 80 year old would be first in line for a heart transplant in the US. bull, and you know it.

Right, but he'd get the pacemaker, no problem. So your point is that an electronic device = an organ?

Quote
Quote
I'll send you some biology text books and after you read them we can continue that discussion.
The fact that you assume people are uneducated for disagreeing with you is so ridiculous and arrogant that literally anything you say from here on is worthless junk. Go slap yourself. Oh, and, pamphlets from "Pro-Life" organizations aren't textbooks btw.

LOL. Did I say I was going to send you something from Pat Robertson? I believe that the fetus is alive, and biology can prove it. The arguments to the contrary are a cop-out, IMHO. Ultimately though, I can live with the fact that you want to kill YOUR baby, I won't be killing mine, though.

I've never been called arrogant before, but thank you. I'll take it as a complement. I have to say, you are one of the few people that I don't think I can agree with on ANYTHING. That's pretty impressive. Are you my evil twin?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 02:52:06 AM
Right, but he'd get the pacemaker, no problem. So your point is that an electronic device = an organ?
True, and I find it exceptionally hard to believe he didn't get a pacemaker in the UK as well, but that's word against word I suppose.

Quote
LOL. Did I say I was going to send you something from Pat Robertson? I believe that the fetus is alive, and biology can prove it. The arguments to the contrary are a cop-out, IMHO. Ultimately though, I can live with the fact that you want to kill YOUR baby, I won't be killing mine, though.
Alive yes, a baby no. Lots of things in this world is alive without being a baby. If you're one of the people who are opposed to abortion on a personal level, but supports legislation so other can do it if it's right for them, I respect that. What I don't respect is the majority of older men who decide 'I don't like abortion, so nobody should be allowed to do it'.

Quote
I've never been called arrogant before, but thank you. I'll take it as a complement. I have to say, you are one of the few people that I don't think I can agree with on ANYTHING. That's pretty impressive. Are you my evil twin?
I am. Damn, busted.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Keanu on May 29, 2007, 02:58:17 AM
In the sleepy west of the woody east
is a valley full, full o' pioneer
we're not just kids, to say the least
we got ideas to us that's dear
like capitalist, like communist
like lots of things you've heard about


That's from "U-Mass" by The Pixies.  They're a lot like you guys, I think.  But then again I don't understand irony, so maybe not.  Whatevs.  Either way, The Pixies are like the secret password when you're trying to take home an indie chick.  Can we not agree on this much?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 07:51:17 AM
LOL. Did I say I was going to send you something from Pat Robertson? I believe that the fetus is alive, and biology can prove it. The arguments to the contrary are a cop-out, IMHO. Ultimately though, I can live with the fact that you want to kill YOUR baby, I won't be killing mine, though.

That's my sentiment.  Personally, my moral and religous beliefs compell me to detest the Idea.  But my political side is again wary of goverment involvement in private matters.  Do what you will with your body but dont expect the government (innocent tax payers) to fund your sinful ways.

I actually don't like the death penalty either.  Different reasoning gets me to same conclusion.  I don't like to murder people, and I don't like to pay for the murder of people.  I'm more accepting though because the death of a murderous criminal doesn't bother me enough to protest the system. I would support efforts to fully vet the system to save falsely convicted inmates (convicted because of incompetance and/or racism).

On the indie chick thing.  I'm not into indie chicks.  I like women that shower, and shave thier pits.  Since I'm about be rich, I'd like her to have he own money as well.  I'm not busting my ass to give it all to a leach for sex.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 09:03:53 AM


On the indie chick thing.  I'm not into indie chicks.  I like women that shower, and shave thier pits.  Since I'm about be rich, I'd like her to have he own money as well.  I'm not busting my ass to give it all to a leach for sex.

But what if we're talking about an endearing, attractive leach?

Death penalty, eh.  I've gone back and forth.  Ultimately though I wouldn't say I'm against its use in some situations.  I don't think that's incompatible with libertarianism. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 11:28:45 AM
I'm against abortion AND the death penalty (although in some extreme cases I'm okay with it). Ultimately I'm not THAT crazy about ending abortion. It's people killing their own babies, and frankly there isn't really much chance of it affecting me in any way.

If I ruled the world, abortions would probably be illegal, I won't lie about that. I believe the fetus is as alive as anyone else -- hell, the law isn't even consistent on that, if you have an abortion, it isn't murder, but if you murder a pregnant woman, you'll get charged with two counts.

I don't base that view on religious grounds. I'm basically an atheist these days anyway. I will never be the guy with a crucifix standing outside of Planned Parenthood in January.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 11:39:00 AM
I'm against abortion AND the death penalty (although in some extreme cases I'm okay with it). Ultimately I'm not THAT crazy about ending abortion. It's people killing their own babies, and frankly there isn't really much chance of it affecting me in any way.

If I ruled the world, abortions would probably be illegal, I won't lie about that. I believe the fetus is as alive as anyone else -- hell, the law isn't even consistent on that, if you have an abortion, it isn't murder, but if you murder a pregnant woman, you'll get charged with two counts.

I don't base that view on religious grounds. I'm basically an atheist these days anyway. I will never be the guy with a crucifix standing outside of Planned Parenthood in January.
Fortunately I'm taking over THE WORLD!!!  I advocate Planned Parenthood for Democrats only.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 02:23:56 PM
I literally can't believe there's still people against abortion.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 02:30:12 PM
I literally can't believe there's still people against abortion.
Heh, I can't believe there are people who have unprotected sex, and then are surprised
 when they get pregnant or catch an STD.  Or people who sleep around and the female dog that they aren't ready for a kid.
I'm no saint but take responsibility.

barring rape, life and death,and the other relatively rare occurances.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 02:32:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 02:40:51 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)
Hells Yea! ;D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 02:44:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)

My wife is very much opposed to abortion, and not simply as a personal preference.  Me, too, for that matter.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
I'm sure there's some completely lunatic women out there, yeah :)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)

My wife is very much opposed to abortion, and not simply as a personal preference.  Me, too, for that matter.
I've always wanted to be a dead beat dad.  When I was little I sad "I wanna be a dead beat dad when I grow up.  I'm gonna screw every female (beast or human) that crosses my path.  I want to spread my seed to all of the furthest reaches of the earth.".
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on May 29, 2007, 03:04:25 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 03:05:57 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.
This may be the first time I agree with you!  Where's the Champagne?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 03:06:41 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)

Actually more men are pro-choice than women percentage-wise in the US. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 03:07:58 PM
I'm sure there's some completely lunatic women out there, yeah :)

Nnotwithstanding the smiley, your ad hominem is not cool.  Someone who disagrees with you on an issue upon which the general population is sharply divided must be insane, eh?  Interesting that one moment you suggest that you "literally" can't believe there are those who think their views should be forced upon others, and the next you suggest that anyone who doesn't share your views is insane.  
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on May 29, 2007, 03:11:56 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.
This may be the first time I agree with you!  Where's the Champagne?

We probably agree more than you think.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 03:13:10 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.
This may be the first time I agree with you!  Where's the Champagne?

We probably agree more than you think.
You lost me ???


 ;D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 03:14:05 PM
I'm sure there's some completely lunatic women out there, yeah :)

Nnotwithstanding the smiley, your ad hominem is not cool.  Someone who disagrees with you on an issue upon which the general population is sharply divided must be insane, eh?  Interesting that one moment you suggest that you "literally" can't believe there are those who think their views should be forced upon others, and the next you suggest that anyone who doesn't share your views is insane. 

No, it's actually not about disagree with me. It's about people feeling so entitled about their own principle and beliefs they feel it should apply to absolutely everyone. I have no problem what-so-ever if you and your wife chose not to have an abortion based on your beliefs or whatever. However the "because I think its wrong, nobody should do it" - that part I have very big problems with, and I'd hope more people did.

Quote
Actually more men are pro-choice than women percentage-wise in the US.

Could be, I haven't actually checked it at all. Anything less than 100% support is ridiculous to me.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on May 29, 2007, 03:17:17 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.
This may be the first time I agree with you!  Where's the Champagne?

We probably agree more than you think.
You lost me ???


 ;D
::) :D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 03:57:48 PM
No, it's actually not about disagree with me. It's about people feeling so entitled about their own principle and beliefs they feel it should apply to absolutely everyone. I have no problem what-so-ever if you and your wife chose not to have an abortion based on your beliefs or whatever. However the "because I think its wrong, nobody should do it" - that part I have very big problems with, and I'd hope more people did.

Isn't thinking something is wrong, and thus no one should do, the very basis of law?

"I think segregation is wrong, so no one should do it."
"I think polluting is wrong, so no one should do it."
"I think forcing workers into 18 hour days is wrong, so no one should do it."

Or am I missing something?

Every example you mentioned were cases that has severe consequences in other people's lives. An abortion affects nobody but the person making the decision to do so. So no, it's not the same thing.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 04:10:43 PM


Isn't thinking something is wrong, and thus no one should do, the very basis of law?



I think wearing burnt orange and red together is wrong.

If you think the fetus is a person, I don't see how you could possibly think abortion should be legal.  
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 04:14:02 PM

No, it's actually not about disagree with me. It's about people feeling so entitled about their own principle and beliefs they feel it should apply to absolutely everyone. I have no problem what-so-ever if you and your wife chose not to have an abortion based on your beliefs or whatever. However the "because I think its wrong, nobody should do it" - that part I have very big problems with, and I'd hope more people did.


It seems to me that those who have come to the metaphysical conclusion that personhood is instantiated at some point before birth have an ethical duty to raise their voice against the destruction of these persons.  This paradigm of thought is no different than seeking a codified prohibition on murder (in the strict sense of the word).  Do you also assert that those who oppose murder should not seek to have such opposition substantiated in public policy (in the hypothetical event that such public policy did not exist)?  We apply ethics, as we understand them, to the world, and generally we seek to have our ethics substantiated in public policy.  Your ethic with respect to abortion obviously differs from mine, but you nonetheless seek to have yours substantiated by public policy (abortion on demand, I assume). 

Your appeals to liberty and individuality do not sway me.  I am a product of my environment, of course, so I think freedom is a good thing, generally.  But I also respect a classical, Aristotelean view of the world in which freedom is not always (not even often, perhaps) paramount.  You think I'm intolerant and dogmatic because I would dare to impose my principles and values upon others; yet, you presume to impose the preeminence of liberty upon me.  In short, you operate under an assumption, but my views do not follow from this assumption and, indeed, I may not even share this assumption.  Thus, I am insane.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 04:14:26 PM
Well, if you believe that a fetus is a child, as many people honestly and sincerely do, then we've now affected several generations of people.  And it does have societal consequences - it's a statement about what society values.  Who does and does not deserve protection under the law.

For the record, I am not for criminalizing abortion.  I am, however, for admitting that abortions ends a human life.

Well, so does jerking off then, if you have no concern about the evolvement of the fetus. And yet again, you come back to if the people believe this, not an objective fact. Depending on what week you take abortion, biology can very clearly explain to what degree a fetus has become a child. As for societal value, who are you making that statement to? A majority of the civilized world consider it quite medieval of the US to still be arguing this point, so for outsiders you certainly wouldn't show any negative values by allowing abortions.

Quote
It seems to me that those who have come to the metaphysical conclusion that personhood is instantiated at some point before birth have an ethical duty to raise their voice against the destruction of these persons.

If the word metaphysical is needed to explain something, it doesn't belong in public policy.

Quote
Do you also assert that those who oppose murder should not seek to have such opposition substantiated in public policy (in the hypothetical event that such public policy did not exist)?

There's no metaphysical assumption needed to understand a murder victim is a fully developed human being. So the comparison is ridiculous.

Quote
You think I'm intolerant and dogmatic because I would dare to impose my principles and values upon others; yet, you presume to impose the preeminence of liberty upon me.

No, actually my view on this imposes nothing on you. If abortion is legalized, that does by no mean force you to having to have an abortion. You still have the choice to stand by your principles. The only thing in question here is the other way around, that you feel that your rules should apply to everyone. Where as I feel that everyone needs to be allowed to make that decision themselves. We know, scientifically, that it takes several weeks for a fetus to develop into a human, and while you may want to be conservative in setting that timelime, it's a different matter than blank criminalization.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 04:24:07 PM

Well, so does jerking off then, if you have no concern about the evolvement of the fetus. And yet again, you come back to if the people believe this, not an objective fact. Depending on what week you take abortion, biology can very clearly explain to what degree a fetus has become a child. As for societal value, who are you making that statement to? A majority of the civilized world consider it quite medieval of the US to still be arguing this point, so for outsiders you certainly wouldn't show any negative values by allowing abortions.

Masturbation is irrelevant.  Sperm is not a living human individual any more than the cells in my fingernails when I trim them off.

If the word metaphysical is needed to explain something, it doesn't belong in public policy.

When does a human individual become a person (and thus inherit the legal rights and protections that we assign to that the status of person)?  This is a metaphysical question, as it calls into question a distinction between simply being biologically human and being a person.  And, whether you acknowledge it or not, many of our public policy questions rely on metaphysical conclusions such as this.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 04:25:33 PM
It's also interesting that your intolerance for others' views has reared its head again.  Who are you to tell everyone that metaphysics has no place in the public square?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 04:27:10 PM
Sorry to have hijacked this thread, to those still tuned in.  I'm not black, and I'm not really talking about black conservatism...
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 04:44:17 PM
Masturbation is irrelevant.  Sperm is not a living human individual any more than the cells in my fingernails when I trim them off.

And for a time in early pregnancy the fetus is no more than living cells either. But yes, I agree that the comparison is a bit off, it wasn't meant to be the basis of any conclusion.

Quote
When does a human individual become a person (and thus inherit the legal rights and protections that we assign to that the status of person)?  This is a metaphysical question, as it calls into question a distinction between simply being biologically human and being a person.  And, whether you acknowledge it or not, many of our public policy questions rely on metaphysical conclusions such as this.

A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date. Based on science and rationality we can very precisely know how a fetus has developed at any given time. My personal opinion is that the 12 weeks which are a standard here seems reasonable. I don't think anyone will objectively claim that the fetus has developed into a person at that time. Yet again, I say objectively, as based on biology, not some religious (usually) belief that egg+sperm=instant person.

Quote
It's also interesting that your intolerance for others' views has reared its head again.  Who are you to tell everyone that metaphysics has no place in the public square?

Well, I am one to state my opinion, just like you state yours. For some reason everyone seems to expect me to put a disclaimer on my posts to explain that I am writing my opinion, where as nobody else seems to need that. That being said, I really think we should be able to chalk this one down to common sense actually. Public policy should be based on facts, science and reality. Metaphysics first of all does not fulfill any empirical requirements, plus it's highly subjective. A public policy that applies to everyone in a nation should not be based on the subjective opinion of whatever group of people happen to be in possession of the most power at the time; it should be based on objective facts which are not (without self-delusion) rejected.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 04:59:13 PM
I literally can't believe there's still people against abortion.

And I can't believe there are people for it...

...you just can't seem to believe that anyone could possibly disagree with you, eh?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 05:00:57 PM
Sorry to have hijacked this thread, to those still tuned in.  I'm not black, and I'm not really talking about black conservatism...
Perhaps you have some sort of metaphysical blackness within...

And by the way I preserve my sperm inthe freezer in cas of an emergency. We may need to repopulate in a hurry.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 05:01:13 PM
I literally can't believe there's still people against abortion.

And I can't believe there are people for it...

...you just can't seem to believe that anyone could possibly disagree with you, eh?

I would be surprised, but there seem to be a lot of people around this site with that point of view.  
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 05:05:10 PM
I literally can't believe there's still people against abortion.

And I can't believe there are people for it...

...you just can't seem to believe that anyone could possibly disagree with you, eh?

Figure of speech mate. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 05:18:00 PM
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that some people choose not to have an abortion. But the mentality that "I don't like abortion, so nobody else should be allowed to" is fubar in my eyes.

Seems it's always men who's against it too actually. Guess it's easy to not support abortion when you can just bail on her sorry ass and be done with it? :)

LOL. Spread misinformation.

I'm a libertarian, I don't care if you do things I don't like. I don't like having a penis in my butt, but I'll defend your right...

I don't believe in victimless crimes, and if I were able to believe that there wasn't a victim in abortions, I would be all for it. However, my opinion is that there is.

It is a red herring to insinuate that Men are always the ones who are against abortion. It is not only a false statement, but it is completely irrelevant. Besides, perhaps men are viewed as more vehement opponents to abortion because we are ultimately the ones who are given no say in the matter. It is every bit as much the father's child after it is born, why not before?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 05:19:55 PM
Outlawing abortion won't end abortion. Working to end poverty and improve access to education will.

And then it will be suburban teenagers getting them, like they do now. Right here in NJ it is really easy for them, they don't even have to tell their parents. Perfect for the Catholic school girls.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 05:23:06 PM
No, it's actually not about disagree with me. It's about people feeling so entitled about their own principle and beliefs they feel it should apply to absolutely everyone. I have no problem what-so-ever if you and your wife chose not to have an abortion based on your beliefs or whatever. However the "because I think its wrong, nobody should do it" - that part I have very big problems with, and I'd hope more people did.

good point. Since some people don't think it is wrong for me to rape-kill your sister for not wearing a burhka, maybe it is ok. I mean, if we're not ALL against it, it can't be inherently wrong, can it?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 29, 2007, 05:25:23 PM
No, it's actually not about disagree with me. It's about people feeling so entitled about their own principle and beliefs they feel it should apply to absolutely everyone. I have no problem what-so-ever if you and your wife chose not to have an abortion based on your beliefs or whatever. However the "because I think its wrong, nobody should do it" - that part I have very big problems with, and I'd hope more people did.

Isn't thinking something is wrong, and thus no one should do, the very basis of law?

"I think segregation is wrong, so no one should do it."
"I think polluting is wrong, so no one should do it."
"I think forcing workers into 18 hour days is wrong, so no one should do it."

Or am I missing something?

Every example you mentioned were cases that has severe consequences in other people's lives. An abortion affects nobody but the person making the decision to do so. So no, it's not the same thing.

Except it also affects the father of the baby, AND THE DEAD BABY WHO GETS VACUUMED OUT OF THE WOMB.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 05:25:25 PM
I'm a libertarian, I don't care if you do things I don't like. I don't like having a penis in my butt, but I'll defend your right...

I'm sure the gays aprreciate the fact thet you got thier back...Pun Intended.






He said: Catholic school girls
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 05:26:33 PM
Because every part of the burden is on the woman. That part should be obvious, really. Anyway, about the female-male ratio I see that you are right. Numbers I've found indicate that 24% of women are for criminalized abortion while 20% of the men are. I'm glad to see numbers are this low at least. That being said, it seems that abortion restrictions in the US are very free, perhaps because the debate tends to be directed towards 'legal or criminal' with no in between, which is probably where a majority of the population would end up.

Quote
I don't believe in victimless crimes

I like that attitude, but I'm not sure what constitutes a victim less crime really. I understand that in this case you consider a baby to be a person at the time of conception, and I won't bother argue that, we're not going to agree on that part. But in general, what do you consider victim less? Are we talking just direction as a result of the crime, or do we also consider indirect victims in a prior event to the crime? Drug smuggling in relation to drug use as criminal for example.

Yes, I realize this thread is derailed, but I do think constructive discussion died a few pages ago, so hopefully no harm now.

Edit; Another part to be taken into consideration is that criminalizing it would in reality be unenforceable. The world has become a much smaller place than just 30-40 years ago. Where women previously may have sorted to illegal abortions, today the same women (except the poor ones) could simply get on a train, bus or plane to somewhere it is legal and have the procedure done. The poor ones would still be forced to illegal abortions, but those who really were that committed to it probably wouldn't be frightened away from doing it. Also, with cheaper and higher quality technology illegal abortions would most likely involve considerably less risk, and thus be less likely to frighten someone away from doing it.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 05:55:57 PM

A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date. Based on science and rationality we can very precisely know how a fetus has developed at any given time. My personal opinion is that the 12 weeks which are a standard here seems reasonable. I don't think anyone will objectively claim that the fetus has developed into a person at that time. Yet again, I say objectively, as based on biology, not some religious (usually) belief that egg+sperm=instant person.


What is it about a trip down a birth canal that instantiates such a distinct and dramatic change in status for a child, I wonder?  Seems arbitrary to me.

Well, I am one to state my opinion, just like you state yours. For some reason everyone seems to expect me to put a disclaimer on my posts to explain that I am writing my opinion, where as nobody else seems to need that. That being said, I really think we should be able to chalk this one down to common sense actually. Public policy should be based on facts, science and reality. Metaphysics first of all does not fulfill any empirical requirements, plus it's highly subjective. A public policy that applies to everyone in a nation should not be based on the subjective opinion of whatever group of people happen to be in possession of the most power at the time; it should be based on objective facts which are not (without self-delusion) rejected.

Point taken.  I respectfully submit (and I mean this constructively...not trying to be caustic) that perhaps it is your dismissive and condescending attitude toward others that creates this burden on you.  Your approach is not "Oh, that's interesting, but I disagree and this is why..."  Rather, it's "anyone who does not see this issue the same way as me is irrational."

Re: metaphysics.  I think you are confusing metaphysics with religious beliefs or spirituality or something.  Certainly there is a metaphysical component to these things, but I'm speaking of metaphysics in a more strictly philosophical, and thus more general, sense.  The question: "Is there special value to human life (in contrast to other forms of life)?" suggests contemplation of the metaphysical. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 06:03:38 PM
What is it about a trip down a birth canal that instantiates such a distinct and dramatic change in status for a child, I wonder?  Seems arbitrary to me.

It is largely arbitrary, but we have to put the limit somewhere even if that limit is at conception and that would also be quite arbitrary since little human is evolved at that point. That being said, I'm quite surprised to see that the US allows abortions up until the day of birth, albeit they are quite rare.

Quote
Point taken.  I respectfully submit (and I mean this constructively...not trying to be caustic) that perhaps it is your dismissive and condescending attitude towards others that creates this burden on you.  Your approach is not "Oh, that's interesting, but I disagree and this is why..."  Rather, it's "anyone who does not see this issue the same way as me is irrational."

Well, yes the usage of words like insane and irrational are consciously (?) used to provoke some reaction. That being said, it is my nature to be quite blunt in speech, that is a part of the culture I've grown up in. I get the impression that Americans are generally a bit more diplomatic about stating their opinions. Perhaps this is something I should adapt, perhaps it isn't, I haven't quite made up my mind yet :)

Quote
Re: metaphysics.  I think you are confusing metaphysics with religious beliefs or spirituality or something.  Certainly there is a metaphysical component to these things, but I'm speaking of metaphysics in a more strictly philosophical, and thus more general, sense.  The question: "Is there special value to human life (in contrast to other forms of life)?" suggests contemplation of the metaphysical. 

Nope, we speak of the same thing, just that I equate the philosophical parts with the religious parts in this matter. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the general idea, just that this is something that will be so individual, I do not feel we should base something as rigid as laws on it. I find the question of both when life starts and the value of human life to be quite interesting, but I do not believe me nor anyone else has the right answer to this question, because it will be different for every one of us. I'm quite a fan of as little governmental intervention as possible, and I'd rather have as few things as possible outlawed. I believe people should have the right to decide over their own life and body, yet I do realize that there are things we need to restrict. I do not feel abortion is one of those things, at least not first trimester abortions where it can be safely concluded that the fetus/baby does not suffer or have any conscious awareness. Thus, up till this point I believe this to be a victimless crime, as someone mentioned. I do not like the ideas I get from reading about partial birth abortions, for the same reason - we know that the fetus/baby at this time actually do suffer pain, etc.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 06:03:51 PM
A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date.

On the contrary, many, many people argue you should be able to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.  Some even argue that the right to terminate the life of a child continues until 2-4 months after birth.  This is extreme, obviously, and does not represent mainstream pro-choice views.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 29, 2007, 06:13:03 PM
You gut guys use an awful lot of big words.  You must be right; because of that.

I haven't found <<e>> to be disagreeable.  He's just expressing an opinion.  I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.

I'v'e found that when people have a weakened argument to defend they tend to confuscate the language with abstract conceptual applications, figuratively speaking of course...

Lets lighten up on the lawyer speak and talk straight here. Then we can acually focus on the issue at hand  and not argue over definition. 

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 29, 2007, 06:17:34 PM
A human becomes a person and inherits legal rights at birth, but I don't think anyone argues that you should be allowed to take an abortion up until that date.

On the contrary, many, many people argue you should be able to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.  Some even argue that the right to terminate the life of a child continues until 2-4 months after birth.  This is extreme, obviously, and does not represent mainstream pro-choice views.

Yes, I found out both of these parts, and sorta addressed it in the post above. I certainly do not agree with this, and as I found out from Wikipedia, the largest portion on the abortion matters are for legalization, but for stricter regulations... Which I suppose is a good thing with practices like this.

Quote from: Gwiz
I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.
Shush!
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: stsherri on May 29, 2007, 06:44:33 PM
I haven't found <<e>> to be disagreeable.  He's just expressing an opinion.  I suspect that alot of the time he's playing devils advocate but that's beside the point.

Yes. I think <<e>> and I have had a very civil discourse.  It was the dialaogue with a couple earlier participants where I think there were some marginally offensive remarks (not to mention the "your wife is a lunatic" jab). 

I'v'e found that when people have a weakened argument to defend they tend to confuscate the language with abstract conceptual applications, figuratively speaking of course...

Lets lighten up on the lawyer speak and talk straight here. Then we can acually focus on the issue at hand  and not argue over definition. 

My arguments must always be weak, because I almost always endeavor to consider things abstractly and conceptually.  I'm not sure I know how to speak "straight talk."  I guess I chose the right profession?

And <<e>>: no hard feelings, of course.  I respect your views (if they are, indeed, your own), and was trying to get to a place where I felt like you respected mine.  We are clearly operating from under different assumptions and in differing paradigms, and thus we are doomed to talk past one another on this issue, I think. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on May 30, 2007, 08:22:01 AM
My views on abortion are certainly the ones I convey here yes. I do not however seriously believe your wife to be a lunatic for her beliefs etc, was trying to get some action going there, and I guess I succeeded:) And I hope you take no offense indeed, I enjoy a heated debate on forums, this is sort of a no blood, no foul arena for discussion in my opinion. I'm a tad bit more gentle in real life conversations:)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on May 30, 2007, 11:52:08 AM
My views on abortion are certainly the ones I convey here yes. I do not however seriously believe your wife to be a lunatic for her beliefs etc, was trying to get some action going there, and I guess I succeeded:) And I hope you take no offense indeed, I enjoy a heated debate on forums, this is sort of a no blood, no foul arena for discussion in my opinion. I'm a tad bit more gentle in real life conversations:)

wuss.

[img width= height=]http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/-/Puss-in-Boots---Shrek-2-Poster-C10123744.jpeg[/img]
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Keanu on May 30, 2007, 12:14:51 PM
I'm a libertarian, I don't care if you do things I don't like. I don't like having a penis in my butt, but I'll defend your right...

::inserts penis in Longshot's butt::

::aborts the resulting lovechild::
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on May 30, 2007, 12:50:40 PM
I'm a libertarian, I don't care if you do things I don't like. I don't like having a penis in my butt, but I'll defend your right...

::inserts penis in Longshot's butt::

::aborts the resulting lovechild::

It's MY body, and I will decide if and when I want to poop out our buttsex love-child.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on May 30, 2007, 12:57:32 PM
This thread is going to hell.  Oh sorry to impose my religous beliefs. This thread is going somewhere other than where it started and for the worse..
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 09:28:04 AM
I can't quit this site so I'm back.  First here's a test: By The National Black Republican Association

History Test

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY:  THE UNTOLD STORY
NOTE:  All answers are "b."

1.  What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

2.  What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

3.  What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

4.  What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

5.  What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

6.  What was the Party of President  Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

7.   What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

8.  What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party

9.  What is the Party of President George W. Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court’s University of Michigan Affirmative Action decision, and is spending over $200 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help black Americans prosper, including school vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home ownership, and small business ownership?
 [  ]  a.  Democratic Party
 [  ]  b.  Republican Party
_____________________________ _______

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY:  THE UNTOLD STORY - PART II
NOTE: In the The Black Republican magazine on page 51, all answers are "Republican Party" and on page 52, all answers are "Democratic Party".

10.  What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

11.  What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

12.  What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

13.  What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General  Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

14.  What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

15.  What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

16.  What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party

17.  What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
 [  ]  a.  Republican Party
 [  ]  b.  Democratic Party
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 07, 2007, 09:36:43 AM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 09:47:25 AM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above
History has a habbit of repeating itself.  Ask Joe Biden (D) how he feels about Black Americans. (It's best to get him drunk first; he's pretty good at keeping up his facade).

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 07, 2007, 09:52:42 AM
Yeah, I'm sure reintroducing slavery is on Obama's agenda.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 10:03:39 AM
Yeah, I'm sure reintroducing slavery is on Obama's agenda.
You're joking but that may not be that far fetched.  Slavery comes in many forms. Example: Allowing companies in the SW to hire illegal immigrants so they can save money on lower wages, and no benefits.

That comes from people in both parties but I like to blame the dems just the same.

 

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 07, 2007, 12:56:49 PM
"Dolla Dolla," what is your opinion of money?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 01:15:18 PM
"Dolla Dolla," what is your opinion of money?
At present? I Think Present Value of money is the same as the future value, divided by the sum of one and the annualized interest value multipled by itself over a pre-determined number of periods.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 07, 2007, 01:16:14 PM
"Dolla Dolla," what is your opinion of money?
At present?

No, in general. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 01:22:51 PM
"Dolla Dolla," what is your opinion of money?
At present?

No, in general. 
It doesn't bring happines, sometimes it could bring the exact opposite.  It is a dangerous beast when treated improperly.  As a currency it is a great means to gain the things we need; and, with enough, even some of the things we don't need. I'm neutral about money.  It's the posessor that concerns me the most.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 07, 2007, 01:29:58 PM
"Dolla Dolla," what is your opinion of money?
At present?

No, in general. 
It doesn't bring happines, sometimes it could bring the exact opposite.  It is a dangerous beast when treated improperly.  As a currency it is a great means to gain the things we need; and, with enough, even some of the things we don't need. I'm neutral about money.  It's the posessor that concerns me the most.

What do you think of:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 01:40:53 PM
Are you trying to recruit me to objectivism?   Clarence Thomas is an Objectivist. I tend to move in my own thought but It's not far from where I stand. 

Thanks for showing me the web site.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 07, 2007, 01:43:58 PM
I like:
Who Is Gouging Whom?
by David Holcberg  (May 26, 2007)

Last Wednesday the House of Representatives passed legislation instituting penalties of up to $150 million for companies and up to $2 million and 10 years' imprisonment for individuals found guilty of gasoline "price gouging." But the real gouger driving up gasoline prices is not the private sector, it is our government.

To "gouge" means to extort, to take by force--something that oil companies and gas stations have no power to do. Unlike a government, which can forcibly take away its citizens' money and dictate their behavior, an oil company can only make us an offer to buy its products, which we are free to reject.

Because sellers must gain the voluntary consent of buyers, and because the market allows freedom of competition, oil and gasoline prices are set, not by the whim of companies, but by economic factors such as supply and demand. If oil companies could set prices at will, surely they would have charged higher prices in the 1990s, when gasoline was under one dollar a gallon!

Because oil companies and gas stations cannot set their prices arbitrarily, they must make their profits by earning them--by efficiently producing something that we value and are eager to buy. In so doing, they assume great risks and expend enormous effort. Over the decades, oil companies have created a huge infrastructure to produce and distribute gasoline by investing hundreds of billions of dollars in prospecting, drilling, transporting, stocking and refining oil.

In the absence of political factors like the 1973 OPEC oil embargo or the Gulf Wars, the net effect of oil companies' pursuit of profit has been to drive the price of oil and gasoline, not up, but down. The price of a gallon of gasoline (in 2006 dollars) fell from $3 in the early 1920's to $2.50 in the 1940's to $2 in the 1960's to under $1.50 in the 1990's. This downward trend is all the more impressive because it required the discovery and exploration of previously inaccessible sources of oil and because it persisted despite massive taxation and increased government regulation of the oil industry.

When we see the price of gasoline today, we should not accuse oil companies of gouging, but rather thank them that prices are not much higher.

The true culprit that we should condemn for driving up prices is the government, which has engaged--with popular support--in the gouging of both the producers and consumers of gasoline.

Federal and state governments have long viewed gasoline taxes as a cash cow. In 2003, for instance, when the average retail price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.56, federal and state taxes averaged about $0.40 a gallon--which amounts to a far higher tax rate, 34 percent, than we pay for almost any other product. (Contrary to popular belief, gasoline taxes do not just pay for the roads we drive on; less than 60% of the gas-tax-funded "Highway Trust Fund" goes toward highways.)

Along with high taxes, environmental regulations--justified in the name of protecting nature from human activity--have dramatically increased the production costs, and thus the price, of oil and gasoline.

The government, for example, has closed huge areas to oil drilling, including the uninhabited wilderness of ANWR and the out-of-sight waters over the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves. This of course significantly reduces the domestic supply of oil.

The government has also passed onerous environmental regulations that make it uneconomical for many old refineries to keep producing (50 out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004) and discourage new refineries from being built (no major refinery has been built in the last 30 years).

Regulations such as these push the surviving refineries to operate at almost full capacity, creating a situation where any significant reduction in the production of some refineries (e.g., from a hurricane) cannot be compensated by increased production in others. Exorbitant spikes in prices, which many attribute to oil companies' "gouging," are actually caused by government constraints.
If we want to stop the irrational forces that have been driving up the price of gasoline and our cost of living, we must demand that our elected officials eliminate the regulations and excessive taxes that restrict the producers of oil and gas. It's past time to stop gouging oil companies--and ourselves.
 
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 07, 2007, 03:52:51 PM
Yeah, I'm sure reintroducing slavery is on Obama's agenda.
You're joking but that may not be that far fetched.  Slavery comes in many forms. Example: Allowing companies in the SW to hire illegal immigrants so they can save money on lower wages, and no benefits.

That comes from people in both parties but I like to blame the dems just the same.

I'm pretty sure those illegal immigrants prefer being hired on a bad salary rather than being sent back to Mexico... After all, that's why they crossed the border to begin with.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on June 07, 2007, 05:31:34 PM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above

Nothing, unless you vote for a democrat for no reason other than, "Republicans don't like black people."
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 07, 2007, 06:58:40 PM
Are you trying to recruit me to objectivism?   Clarence Thomas is an Objectivist. I tend to move in my own thought but It's not far from where I stand. 

Thanks for showing me the web site.

Is Clarence Thomas really an Objectivist?  I didn't know that.  I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist, but I do agree with much of what Rand has to say. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 05:00:36 AM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above

Nothing, unless you vote for a democrat for no reason other than, "Republicans don't like black people."

That's certainly true.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 08, 2007, 05:48:45 AM
Are you trying to recruit me to objectivism?   Clarence Thomas is an Objectivist. I tend to move in my own thought but It's not far from where I stand. 

Thanks for showing me the web site.

Is Clarence Thomas really an Objectivist?  I didn't know that.  I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist, but I do agree with much of what Rand has to say. 
Yea shortly after law school he began reading Ayn Rand. He even knows her.  In his biography it sayes he agrees  100% with her philosophy.  He's writing an autobio this year maybe he'll go into more depth.

There's some elements of it that don't sit well with me. Not with their monetary philosophy but with thier spirituality.  I'm not interested in getting into it here.  I definately need to learn more about it.  We didn't study much philosophy beyong economic theory in b-school.  When Clarence Thomas got into it he was separated from the church (Catholic). I suspect he was unsure of what direction he was headed and was grasping for anything that meshed well with his conservative libertarian take on life.

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 08, 2007, 05:54:35 AM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above

Nothing, unless you vote for a democrat for no reason other than, "Republicans don't like black people."

That's certainly true.
I worry that the dems take advantage of black loyalty.  Even the black candidate seem to neglect thier constituancy once they get in.  I would like future where both parties have to work to gain black votes.  That's when there will be real influence on our part in the American Political Landscape.



Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 09:03:48 AM
I think you have to break the barrier of getting a black president first; which is why I in other threads have suggested I think black people really should consider giving their vote to Obama, even if he isn't the perfect candidate. The first one is always the hardest, no matter what it comes to. Also, I'd be of the opinion that the democrats are the most beneficial option for disadvantaged people. It's my impression that blacks are overrepresented in this category, but I don't know that for sure. Still, I think that social segment needs to be the priority. Reality is, working class and above are doing pretty good in America these days, more tax cuts and perks to people already rich enough shouldn't be important, fixing the bottom ladders of society should.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 08, 2007, 09:34:42 AM
I think you have to break the barrier of getting a black president first; which is why I in other threads have suggested I think black people really should consider giving their vote to Obama, even if he isn't the perfect candidate. The first one is always the hardest, no matter what it comes to. Also, I'd be of the opinion that the democrats are the most beneficial option for disadvantaged people. It's my impression that blacks are overrepresented in this category, but I don't know that for sure. Still, I think that social segment needs to be the priority. Reality is, working class and above are doing pretty good in America these days, more tax cuts and perks to people already rich enough shouldn't be important, fixing the bottom ladders of society should.
I agree with the Obama part.  I'm considering switching parties just to vote for him in the primary. If he win the General Election we can clean up his mess later.

One group provides social serices to the disadvantages with out any attempt to solve the problems.  I believe this is a deliberate attempt to perpetuate the situation.  The other group prefers to provide solutions to the larger problems but habitually overlooks the immediate suffering that needs to be alleviated. 

If you are disadvantaged and want to stay disadvantaged, and want to remain dependent on the benevolence of others then vote Democrat.  If you are disadvantaged and want to have opportunities to pull yourself up, and are prepared to suffer that fact that you will not be given things but will have to earn them then vote republican.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 09:54:04 AM
You seem a bit paranoid when it comes to democrats :) I really don't see anything in the republican program that actually does anything for disadvantaged people. One could easily argue that neither party really seems to give a *&^% of course.

Quote
If you are disadvantaged and want to have opportunities to pull yourself up, and are prepared to suffer that fact that you will not be given things but will have to earn them then vote republican.

What does this mean?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 08, 2007, 10:49:02 AM
You seem a bit paranoid when it comes to democrats :) I really don't see anything in the republican program that actually does anything for disadvantaged people. One could easily argue that neither party really seems to give a *&^% of course.



I think that's his point.  There is actually a lot to be said for the fact that welfare, civil rights legislation has hurt poor people and blacks.  It makes sense that some of these bureaucrats want there to be poverty and racism since their jobs depend on there being poverty and racism.  No poverty and racism anymore = no job.

And I'll definitely take a look at the Clarence Thomas autobiography when it comes out.  I'm also a little uneasy about Objectivism's take on religion, but politically I'm with it.   
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 10:55:06 AM
I think that's his point.  There is actually a lot to be said for the fact that welfare, civil rights legislation has hurt poor people and blacks.  It makes sense that some of these bureaucrats want there to be poverty and racism since their jobs depend on there being poverty and racism.  No poverty and racism anymore = no job.

Also true, but I wouldn't imagine these bureaucrats in such positions really wield much power in a government. I could certainly be wrong.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 08, 2007, 10:56:47 AM
I think that's his point.  There is actually a lot to be said for the fact that welfare, civil rights legislation has hurt poor people and blacks.  It makes sense that some of these bureaucrats want there to be poverty and racism since their jobs depend on there being poverty and racism.  No poverty and racism anymore = no job.

Also true, but I wouldn't imagine these bureaucrats in such positions really wield much power in a government. I could certainly be wrong.

Inidividually I don't think they have much power, but as a group they definitely do. 
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on June 08, 2007, 11:49:19 AM
Which of these points should be relevant for who you vote for this election?
[] a. All of the above
[] b. None of the above

Nothing, unless you vote for a democrat for no reason other than, "Republicans don't like black people."

That's certainly true.
I worry that the dems take advantage of black loyalty.  Even the black candidate seem to neglect thier constituancy once they get in.  I would like future where both parties have to work to gain black votes.  That's when there will be real influence on our part in the American Political Landscape.

I think that is when black people will loose their influence in the American political landscape. Not to imply that blacks are monolithic, but politically, we kinda are. We are the most important voters when white voters are split evenly. If that cohesiveness is diluted, so goes our power in society.

America needs to get rid of the two-party system before we start diluting black voting power. [Putting my hand on my chest, saluting the flag] We are the social conscience of America.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 11:58:50 AM
To lose the two-party system you need to completely remove the "winner takes all" type of elections though. Not sure you'll find political will to do that anywhere.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 08, 2007, 12:05:00 PM
To lose the two-party system you need to completely remove the "winner takes all" type of elections though. Not sure you'll find political will to do that anywhere.

Maybe because people in power want to stay in power... ;)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 08, 2007, 03:46:34 PM
Nah, I can't imagine that is the case:p
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Randy Savage on June 16, 2007, 03:49:09 PM
"The most dangerous place to live in America is inside of a liberals womb"

Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on June 19, 2007, 09:49:39 AM
"The most dangerous place to live in America is inside of a liberals womb"



::)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Randy Savage on June 19, 2007, 01:31:23 PM
"The most dangerous place to live in America is inside of a liberals womb"



I just looked at your 5 most recent posts, and I have to ask are you 13 years old?
You're a bit of a looser aren't you? I feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Randy Savage on June 20, 2007, 09:35:45 AM
You're a bit of a looser aren't you? I feel sorry for you.


Wow, totally a lame attempt to spoof my account. If you look at the post count for the other one, it's a different person. It'll be kind of flattering once I get past the embarassment.
Now I'm using and old account in a lame attempt to claim my madness is the fault of some specter I conjured up in my wiskey haze.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on June 21, 2007, 08:24:58 AM
What happened to this thread?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: DDBY on June 21, 2007, 10:07:50 AM
Nice Tar.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on June 21, 2007, 10:08:24 AM
May be a bit much. ;D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 21, 2007, 10:21:34 AM
Maybe a bit too dumb at least?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on June 21, 2007, 01:08:08 PM
Maybe a bit too dumb at least?
What's dumb about buffalo soldiers?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: «ě» on June 21, 2007, 01:33:31 PM
Nothing dumb about the buffalo soldiers. Just a shame that wasn't your tar when you posted :)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on June 22, 2007, 09:17:09 AM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on June 22, 2007, 11:08:56 AM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

He's prob. better than anyone except Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on June 22, 2007, 12:22:46 PM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

He's prob. better than anyone except Ron Paul.
Congrats on Emory.  You were never a longshot in my book.  Unless you wanted to be a law sniper. ;)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Hank Rearden on June 22, 2007, 06:20:34 PM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

I like that he at least has some attitude.  McCain, Rudy, Romney...they all seem so stale. 

Paul of course would be best.   :)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on June 22, 2007, 06:41:03 PM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

He's prob. better than anyone except Ron Paul.
Congrats on Emory.  You were never a longshot in my book.  Unless you wanted to be a law sniper. ;)

Law Sniper eh? Sounds pretty bad ass. BIGSNIPERLAW?

What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

I like that he at least has some attitude.  McCain, Rudy, Romney...they all seem so stale. 

Paul of course would be best.   :)

 8)
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: 7S on June 25, 2007, 03:40:11 PM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

I think that says more about McCain than it does about Fred Thompson.  :D
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Denny Crane on June 25, 2007, 03:44:30 PM
What do you all think of Fred Thompson? He's already beating McCain in the polls and he hasn't announced a candidacy yet.

I think that says more about McCain than it does about Fred Thompson.  :D

Thompson is leading McCain precisely because he hasn't declared yet.  He hasn't had to speak on any issues.  He just rides the wave of popularity w/o having to address anything.  Once he officially enters, his numbers will balance out.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!! on July 07, 2007, 03:34:35 AM
suuuuuuuuuck considering most black people are conservative already on many issues.
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Slim on July 07, 2007, 05:52:50 AM
suuuuuuuuuck considering most black people are conservative already on many issues.
???  What?
Title: Re: Black Conservatives
Post by: Captain on July 08, 2007, 12:32:08 PM
suuuuuuuuuck considering most black people are conservative already on many issues.
???  What?


I think he is saying that the black community, while being largely democratic, might be more of the Leiberman type of Democrat...