Black Conservatives

[Honkey_Kong]

I dont think he is saying he thinks they should but there are those who do seem to think (on the left) all jobs should pay the same or at least higher but all that does is raise the price of everything else...

I agree, most all of us who are worth their salt have worked hard labor or demeaning type jobs without complaining much and did a good enough job to move up the ladder. That doesn't mean that needs to be your career either, keep bettering yourself and learning to work smarter, not harder.

I was actually just making a playful jab at Euroholic with that comment. But I guess it went over everyone's head.

Get a second job at BK, maybe a 3rd at Wendys. I have had to do it, why shouldn't they?
The Govt needs to simply STOP subsidizing shyt. Farmers are becoming millionaires with increasing land values and higher crop prices, yet the Govt sends them huge checks in the mail.

It's still not worth it, Lunk. Welfare still pays more (if you have a lot of kids) than working 3 fast food jobs.

And I was using the farmer's destruction of crops to illustrate the fact that we have an economy that's based on the necessity of scarcity. If something is more rare, it can earn more money. Which is fine for the wealthy, but the people on the lower end end up getting the shaft.

We should live in an economic system where things are overproduced to the point where everything is cheap and attainable to everybody. I used food as an example, because there is no excuse for a nation that is capable of feeding the world (if it wanted to) to willfully restrict the food supply so that they can drive up the costs and thus profit. There are millions of people in this world (children and adult) that go to bed hungry every night when it DIDN'T have to be that way

[Spartans09]

People in mass, take the path of least resistance. It did not use to be that way. People had more pride and their was a stigma associated with taking. A lot of it comes down to the decay of society, more precisely, the decay of the family. No male role models that are worth a crap.

[OnTheSauce]

People in mass, take the path of least resistance. It did not use to be that way. People had more pride and their was a stigma associated with taking. A lot of it comes down to the decay of society, more precisely, the decay of the family. No male role models that are worth a crap.

Pretty much sums it up

[Spartans09]

I was actually just making a playful jab at Euroholic with that comment. But I guess it went over everyone's head.



It's still not worth it, Lunk. Welfare still pays more (if you have a lot of kids) than working 3 fast food jobs.

And I was using the farmer's destruction of crops to illustrate the fact that we have an economy that's based on the necessity of scarcity. If something is more rare, it can earn more money. Which is fine for the wealthy, but the people on the lower end end up getting the shaft.

We should live in an economic system where things are overproduced to the point where everything is cheap and attainable to everybody. I used food as an example, because there is no excuse for a nation that is capable of feeding the world (if it wanted to) to willfully restrict the food supply so that they can drive up the costs and thus profit. There are millions of people in this world (children and adult) that go to bed hungry every night when it DIDN'T have to be that way

With all due respect, this all sounds good and caring for the less fortunate. However, it is really thinly veiled communism or socialism. Every time throughout history communism/socialism has failed with the direct consequence of unprecedented human suffering that makes our poor look like aristocracy with two tv's, shelter, a car, cell phone and food.
Capitalism, on the other hand,-that is so looked down upon by the bleeding hearts- has done more to elevate an incredible mass of people into the middle class and provide real hope around the world. History speaks for itself (if you get true history and not the revisionist crap touted by the leftist a around the globe).

[gixxerboy1]

With all due respect, this all sounds good and caring for the less fortunate. However, it is really thinly veiled communism or socialism. Every time throughout history communism/socialism has failed with the direct consequence of unprecedented human suffering that makes our poor look like aristocracy with two tv's, shelter, a car, cell phone and food.
Capitalism, on the other hand,-that is so looked down upon by the bleeding hearts- has done more to elevate an incredible mass of people into the middle class and provide real hope around the world. History speaks for itself (if you get true history and not the revisionist crap touted by the leftist a around the globe).

Honestly they all have their faults, imo we are seeing the fall of capitalism now,

[Spartans09]

What we have now is not true capitalism. It is a hybrid mess of over regulation, government intrusion, bailouts and quasi central planning. One of the key principles of capitalism is the ability to succeed or fail on your own merits, not bail out under the premise of too big to fail.

[JohnnyVegas]

Don't ask useless questions. How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky? Who is John Galt?

Not sure if you are serious, sarcastic or if that is a quote from the book, but those are questions we know the answers too and they are not useless.

Just sayin'.

[drake4243]

What about the green Americans does nobody care about them?

[JohnGalt]

Not sure if you are serious, sarcastic or if that is a quote from the book, but those are questions we know the answers too and they are not useless.

Just sayin'.

Yes it's a book quote.

[JohnnyVegas]

Yes it's a book quote.

Makes a lot more sense now. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, just figure out where you were coming from. Haven't read the book in forever.

[JohnGalt]

The opinions I've read from people mostly in the lounge I thought a few others had read it, or at least watched the movies lol

[JohnnyVegas]

What about the green Americans does nobody care about them?

Do you mean people that care about the environment, people who are envious or people without experience?

Yes, I'm joking. Just made it to the end of the thread and need a break from the seriousness.

[thegodfather]

I have such problems with this thread....

See, liberals view people as belonging to groups, and they believe that their rights emanate from those groups. Whereas those of us who are libertarian leaning conservatives believe that people are individuals, and that the rights of individuals ought to be protected. The problem with assigning protected status to certain groups, is that we automatically disenfranchise other people who may not belong to certain protected 'groups.' We essentially assign greater worth to people belonging to one group over another. Case in point is with hate crime legislation, where we say that people who belong to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group are worth more then people who belong to any number of other groups which the state does not regard as a protected group. The State says that if a crime is committed against a member of one of these protected groups, then that persons attacker will be punished more severely, and that invariably assigns a greater degree of worth to people of that group, as it says crimes committed against your group warrant a stiffer punishment than crimes committed against unprotected groups. Additionally, such laws seek to penalize political speech&thought. One should not be punished more harshly because they feel disdain or hate towards a specific group of people. I contend that a harsher punishment should be not be levied against someone who assaults someone because they are Asian, while not levying an equally harsh penalty against someone who assaults a person because they have red hair, and that attacker hates people with red hair. What is the difference in these two crimes? Nothing, except that one party belongs to a protected group in the eyes of the state, whilst the other does not. We should be punishing BEHAVIOR ONLY, and not the political thoughts&speech of a person. We need to abolish this group think mentality, where members of certain groups are ceded more rights because of their membership to said group. This is why the libertarian mantra of viewing every person as an individual, and your rights emanating from BEING an individual is far preferable to being protected because you belong to a particular group.

[BluPhin]

Get a second job at BK, maybe a 3rd at Wendys. I have had to do it, why shouldn't they?
The Govt needs to simply STOP subsidizing shyt. Farmers are becoming millionaires with increasing land values and higher crop prices, yet the Govt sends them huge checks in the mail.

I am a farmer and I can tell you that this is true. Farming used to be a noble occupation in which people worked hard and usually made a decent living. Now, farmers are becoming millionaires with the current high crop prices. And yes, the government still sends us a substantial check for dairy and crop subsidies. Not to mention government underwritten crop insurance which virtually eliminates the element of risk. If you are a farmer with a substantial amount of acreage, you already have the world by the ass because you virtually cant fail. Why in the hell would a government that is strapped for cash turn around and give more money to this population of our society?

[Metalject]

I have such problems with this thread....

See, liberals view people as belonging to groups, and they believe that their rights emanate from those groups. Whereas those of us who are libertarian leaning conservatives believe that people are individuals, and that the rights of individuals ought to be protected. The problem with assigning protected status to certain groups, is that we automatically disenfranchise other people who may not belong to certain protected 'groups.' We essentially assign greater worth to people belonging to one group over another. Case in point is with hate crime legislation, where we say that people who belong to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group are worth more then people who belong to any number of other groups which the state does not regard as a protected group. The State says that if a crime is committed against a member of one of these protected groups, then that persons attacker will be punished more severely, and that invariably assigns a greater degree of worth to people of that group, as it says crimes committed against your group warrant a stiffer punishment than crimes committed against unprotected groups. Additionally, such laws seek to penalize political speech&thought. One should not be punished more harshly because they feel disdain or hate towards a specific group of people. I contend that a harsher punishment should be not be levied against someone who assaults someone because they are Asian, while not levying an equally harsh penalty against someone who assaults a person because they have red hair, and that attacker hates people with red hair. What is the difference in these two crimes? Nothing, except that one party belongs to a protected group in the eyes of the state, whilst the other does not. We should be punishing BEHAVIOR ONLY, and not the political thoughts&speech of a person. We need to abolish this group think mentality, where members of certain groups are ceded more rights because of their membership to said group. This is why the libertarian mantra of viewing every person as an individual, and your rights emanating from BEING an individual is far preferable to being protected because you belong to a particular group.

I agree completely, our government should not be classifying and separating us into groups. However, we also have to stop doing that to ourselves, we have to stop believing that we are separate. We are either all Americans or we're not. There are no sub-categories.