Class War Illustrated

[georgephillip]

Who gained from "separate but equal" control of local education in the American south prior to the mid-1960s? When Americans with white skins engaged in all manner of class war with those without white skins?

As I recall it was the Conservatives of the day (Republican AND Democrat) who supported segregation and condemned the "slippery slope of federal dependency" that federally enforced integration implied.

Isn't it embarrassing to display your ignorance of history that badly?

But in any case, how about we focus on the here and now instead of more than fifty years ago? I bet if you tried really really hard, you could do that.

Since the here and now is influenced by events that happened in the past, tell me if the Freedom of Choice programs "started the school system on the slippery slope into federal dependency."

For extra credit: Define "federal dependency."

 

[Vanquish]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a bitch.

Typical leftist rebuff...Can't argue the point on the merits, so you resort to emotional blackmail.

Good job.

And there YOU go with a sweeping partisan comment about ALL Leftists...which I'm not even a part of you, fucktard.

Here's a clue. Lunch programs feed POOR KIDS!!! POOR KIDS!!! As in don't have the money? As in parents who work but dont even have the money for school lunch.

WTF, man.

Prove that the Fed government can do it better? I just did. Poor kids have no money for lunch. We, as a country, have decided BY LAW that it's something we want to extend help for.

You fucks take your arguments to stupid extremes and don't have a foot in the stream of reality at ALL.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a bitch.

Typical leftist rebuff...Can't argue the point on the merits, so you resort to emotional blackmail.

Good job.

And there YOU go with a sweeping partisan comment about ALL Leftists...which I'm not even a part of you, fucktard.

Here's a clue. Lunch programs feed POOR KIDS!!! POOR KIDS!!! As in don't have the money? As in parents who work but dont even have the money for school lunch.

WTF, man.

Prove that the Fed government can do it better? I just did. Poor kids have no money for lunch. We, as a country, have decided BY LAW that it's something we want to extend help for.

You fucks take your arguments to stupid extremes and don't have a foot in the stream of reality at ALL.

When you post in a personally insulting way, it generally attracts that kind of response. You might think about that when you phrase your next argument.

And you proved nothing. You expressed a perception. A wrong perception in my opinion.

If poor kids have no money for school lunches, it is logical to assume that they go hungry when they are not in school. And here's a news flash for you--they spend a LOT of time out of school. I for one am not willing to give them crappy school lunches and then pretend everything is just hunky dory.

Parents who cannot or will not provide their children with basic necessities should not have custody of those kids. Subsidizing negligence will invariably encourage there to be more of it.

Further, I strongly disagree that the only way or the best way to get hungry kids fed is via a federal program that siphons most of the money off to feed the bureaucracy.

 

[Oddball]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a bitch.

Typical leftist rebuff...Can't argue the point on the merits, so you resort to emotional blackmail.

Good job.

And there YOU go with a sweeping partisan comment about ALL Leftists...which I'm not even a part of you, fucktard.

Here's a clue. Lunch programs feed POOR KIDS!!! POOR KIDS!!! As in don't have the money? As in parents who work but dont even have the money for school lunch.

WTF, man.

Prove that the Fed government can do it better? I just did. Poor kids have no money for lunch. We, as a country, have decided BY LAW that it's something we want to extend help for.

You fucks take your arguments to stupid extremes and don't have a foot in the stream of reality at ALL.

You claim it, yet almost all of your posts positively scream "LEFTIST FUCKTARD!"....Including that one....But I've come to expect no less form self-professed "centrists", so it's really no surprise.

Now, back to the substance....

We've had decades of "free" school lunches....then breakfasts....then snacks....now they're proposing dinner....Yet all we hear about is how hunger amongst school children is as bad as ever...Is that somehow supposed to be proof of how successful "free" food programs are?

 

[The T]

Who gained from "separate but equal" control of local education in the American south prior to the mid-1960s? When Americans with white skins engaged in all manner of class war with those without white skins?

As I recall it was the Conservatives of the day (Republican AND Democrat) who supported segregation and condemned the "slippery slope of federal dependency" that federally enforced integration implied.

Isn't it embarrassing to display your ignorance of history that badly?

But in any case, how about we focus on the here and now instead of more than fifty years ago? I bet if you tried really really hard, you could do that.

I really wonder why they focus as they do on the past. Seems to me that even the past of the Democrats from Civil War foward isn't worth crowing about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who gained from "separate but equal" control of local education in the American south prior to the mid-1960s? When Americans with white skins engaged in all manner of class war with those without white skins?

As I recall it was the Conservatives of the day (Republican AND Democrat) who supported segregation and condemned the "slippery slope of federal dependency" that federally enforced integration implied.

Isn't it embarrassing to display your ignorance of history that badly?

But in any case, how about we focus on the here and now instead of more than fifty years ago? I bet if you tried really really hard, you could do that.

I really wonder why they focus as they do on the past. Seems to me that even the past of the Democrats from Civil War foward isn't worth crowing about.

It's the scripted talking points. If you can't argue on the merits of your position, you have to go back and dredge up something to put up as a strawman to focus on. It is a deliberate attempt to draw the attention away from an indefensible argument.

 

[The T]

Isn't it embarrassing to display your ignorance of history that badly?

But in any case, how about we focus on the here and now instead of more than fifty years ago? I bet if you tried really really hard, you could do that.

I really wonder why they focus as they do on the past. Seems to me that even the past of the Democrats from Civil War foward isn't worth crowing about.

It's the scripted talking points. If you can't argue on the merits of your position, you have to go back and dredge up something to put up as a strawman to focus on. It is a deliberate attempt to draw the attention away from an indefensible argument.

Exactly. Obfuscation. A favorite trick of the left of my list...

Blame, Deny, Minimize, Obfuscate.

Takes a sharp eye.

 

[kaz]

It's the scripted talking points

I disagree, that would require a level of intelligence they don't possess. Really they just listen for some key words and pop something vaguely related they heard a liberal politician say before.

 

[The T]

It's the scripted talking points

I disagree, that would require a level of intelligence they don't possess. Really they just listen for some key words and pop something vaguely related they heard a liberal politician say before.

And that would be obfuscation...

 

[Foxfyre]

I really wonder why they focus as they do on the past. Seems to me that even the past of the Democrats from Civil War foward isn't worth crowing about.

It's the scripted talking points. If you can't argue on the merits of your position, you have to go back and dredge up something to put up as a strawman to focus on. It is a deliberate attempt to draw the attention away from an indefensible argument.

Exactly. Obfuscation. A favorite trick of the left of my list...

Blame, Deny, Minimize, Obfuscate.

Takes a sharp eye.

Perhaps. I can't be a liberal because I simply can't think like most liberals, even the most well intentioned, think. I think conservatives are far more able to articulate a rationale for a point of view without being personally insulting than most liberals can do.

BUT.....on my list there are trolls, idiots, and numbnuts on both sides and both sides, unless they have been trained not to do so, can be guilty of ad hominem, red herrings, non sequitur, and straw men.

 

[The T]

it's the scripted talking points. If you can't argue on the merits of your position, you have to go back and dredge up something to put up as a strawman to focus on. It is a deliberate attempt to draw the attention away from an indefensible argument.

exactly. Obfuscation. A favorite trick of the left of my list...

blame, deny, minimize, obfuscate.

takes a sharp eye.

perhaps. I can't be a liberal because i simply can't think like most liberals, even the most well intentioned, think. I think conservatives are far more able to articulate a rationale for a point of view without being personally insulting than most liberals can do.

But.....on my list there are trolls, idiots, and numbnuts on both sides and both sides, unless they have been trained not to do so, can be guilty of ad hominem, red herrings, non sequitur, and straw men.

 

[kaz]

It's the scripted talking points

I disagree, that would require a level of intelligence they don't possess. Really they just listen for some key words and pop something vaguely related they heard a liberal politician say before.

And that would be obfuscation...

I'd say more obtusification of an argument

 

[The T]

I disagree, that would require a level of intelligence they don't possess. Really they just listen for some key words and pop something vaguely related they heard a liberal politician say before.

And that would be obfuscation...

I'd say more obtusification of an argument

*Indeed*.

 

[MitchMan]

As I have read some of the posts on this thread, there is a big fallacy looming in the background. The issue has been framed around the existence of a supposed class warfare. In my view, class warfare means that there is war between two classes, and for that to be the situation, that means that most all members of one class are engaging in deliberate antagonism and aggression against the other class, and vice versa. As they say, it takes two to tango. If only one is waging war, and the other is not fighting back, then it is not really war, it’s just a beating. Although, I do sometimes feel that what is really going on right now is more of a beating than warfare, but even that is not an accurate assessment of our current reality.

One of the common retorts by right wingers in this forum and everywhere else they express themselves, is that we liberals are jealous of what the rich have and that we simply hate the rich. Right, OddBall? Often times that is the only and final argument that is posited by the cons, especially when they can’t come up with a real argument. Right, OddBall?

The real issue is that there is a massively inequitable lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top in our society here in the USA. In fact, we are the second worst offender of this inequity in the world. The problem is that our current economic system is way to heavily biased in favor of the wealthy and this bias effectively provides and allows an inequitable transfer of the wealth that is created by the working people of this great country to the wealthy few. This inefficient and inequitable economic system is specifically a result of and is supported by our specific economic structure, our current political system, our current legal system, our government and even in part by our culture. It is systemic, and it needs to be fixed or this inequity will continue worsening, which, beginning with Reagan, is certainly the case.

I don’t hate rich people, most rich people are good people. The wealthy and well-to-do people I have known and currently know and have worked with are, by and large, honest, hard working, intelligent, knowledgeable, self disciplined and moral people that are very good citizens. I have known some rich people that are dishonest, lazy, greedy, larcenous, and even stupid, but those are a small minority of the wealthy people I have known. You will find that at every level of society. So, this is not an indictment of the rich, it is an indictment of the system. So, don’t take it so personally, you dumb cons (the dumb cons can take ‘you dumb cons’ personally, however, I meant that personally).

When the criterion of a class is defined by the income and wealth one possess, there are definitely distinct classes here in the USA. Briefly, the top 15% own 85% of the nation’s wealth, conversely and unfortunately, that means that the bottom 85% own only 15% of the wealth. That’s lopsided, wouldn’t you say? It gets worse: the top 1% own 37%, the top 10% own 71%, the bottom 60% own only 4% and the bottom 40% (and there are a lot of cons and pubs (pronounced ‘pubes&#8217 own less than a mere 1% of the nation’s wealth. That’s lopsided, wouldn’t you say?

Now, all those of you who believe that the lopsided concentration of wealth and income is perfectly OK, and that it is the way things should be, and furthermore, the concentration should be even worse, please respond by saying “yes” and posting here and please give your reasons. Remember, I don’t hate rich people and I am not envious (I’ve got my own, I am doin’ fine.). I just vehemently hate and rigorously oppose those of you who answered “yes”. In fact, I harbor nothing but the most intense contempt for you and your ilk. What is so stupid is that many of those of you who would answer “yes” are not among the wealthy. You, stupid, consistently vote and argue against your own best interest. That, among other things, is why we liberals think (know) that you right wing cons and pubs are so stupid.

I’d prefer that we spend our energy on this thread about how to fix the system and enable the system to more justly reward and compensate more people instead of overcompensating and over rewarding the few at the top and under compensating and under rewarding everyone else. When things would be more equitable, then many more hard working Americans could afford a more adequate standard of living and be safer and healthier and happier.

This should and can all be done within a healthy market economy. Don’t let those larcenous right wingers tell you that the only possible version of a market economy is complete and absolute laissez-faire completely unregulated capitalist market economy. That’s crap!

This is not class warfare, but it is a beating by the larcenous few right wingers and some on the left that are purely political animals that are waging a beating on American working class (which by the way is at least the bottom 95% of us Americans). They are and have been able to skew the economic system in favor of the wealthy at the top because there are too many voting right wingers that have been successfully duped to vote against their own best interest (there are a lot of pubs and cons in the ranks of the bottom 95%, they just aren’t smart enough to realize it). Wake up you numb skulls!

 

[sinister59]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

so you think rich people are on a par with poor in this county ? no special treatment ? WOW

are you rich ?

 

[Chris]

It's the scripted talking points. If you can't argue on the merits of your position, you have to go back and dredge up something to put up as a strawman to focus on. It is a deliberate attempt to draw the attention away from an indefensible argument.

Exactly. Obfuscation. A favorite trick of the left of my list...

Blame, Deny, Minimize, Obfuscate.

Takes a sharp eye.

Perhaps. I can't be a liberal because I simply can't think like most liberals, even the most well intentioned, think. I think conservatives are far more able to articulate a rationale for a point of view without being personally insulting than most liberals can do.

BUT.....on my list there are trolls, idiots, and numbnuts on both sides and both sides, unless they have been trained not to do so, can be guilty of ad hominem, red herrings, non sequitur, and straw men.

You can't be a liberal because you only care about yourself.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

 

[MitchMan]

Chris, you are right on!

 

[Jarhead]

Exactly. Obfuscation. A favorite trick of the left of my list...

Blame, Deny, Minimize, Obfuscate.

Takes a sharp eye.

Perhaps. I can't be a liberal because I simply can't think like most liberals, even the most well intentioned, think. I think conservatives are far more able to articulate a rationale for a point of view without being personally insulting than most liberals can do.

BUT.....on my list there are trolls, idiots, and numbnuts on both sides and both sides, unless they have been trained not to do so, can be guilty of ad hominem, red herrings, non sequitur, and straw men.

You can't be a liberal because you only care about yourself.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Hmmm..

So one who feels that what he or she does....whether the results are positive or negative...is his or her respoinsibility and the ramfications are for him or her to deal with...is selfish...

and...

One that feels he or she can turn to government to bail him out when he makes bad decisions is selfless.

One who feels he would prefer to donate to charities straight from his own pocket and not through government is selfish..

And...

One who does not feel charities would get donations unless it is forced on him through government is selfless.

Interesting.....

 

[G.T.]

Perhaps. I can't be a liberal because I simply can't think like most liberals, even the most well intentioned, think. I think conservatives are far more able to articulate a rationale for a point of view without being personally insulting than most liberals can do.

BUT.....on my list there are trolls, idiots, and numbnuts on both sides and both sides, unless they have been trained not to do so, can be guilty of ad hominem, red herrings, non sequitur, and straw men.

You can't be a liberal because you only care about yourself.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Hmmm..

So one who feels that what he or she does....whether the results are positive or negative...is his or her respoinsibility and the ramfications are for him or her to deal with...is selfish...

and...

One that feels he or she can turn to government to bail him out when he makes bad decisions is selfless.

One who feels he would prefer to donate to charities straight from his own pocket and not through government is selfish..

And...

One who does not feel charities would get donations unless it is forced on him through government is selfless.

Interesting.....

I'd say you're both obfuscating the others' "belief" set.

 

[Jarhead]

You can't be a liberal because you only care about yourself.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Hmmm..

So one who feels that what he or she does....whether the results are positive or negative...is his or her respoinsibility and the ramfications are for him or her to deal with...is selfish...

and...

One that feels he or she can turn to government to bail him out when he makes bad decisions is selfless.

One who feels he would prefer to donate to charities straight from his own pocket and not through government is selfish..

And...

One who does not feel charities would get donations unless it is forced on him through government is selfless.

Interesting.....

I'd say you're both obfuscating the others' "belief" set.

Gee....ya think?

I simply fought fire with fire.

Neither ideology is selfish.

Both ideologies have their pros and cons.