The lefties want "equality". Is equality possible?

[bucs90]

Saw the following quote in another thread:

"Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com"

I thought about it, and pondered a wonderful debate. The left, it seems, wants a large government to guarantee social equality, while the right, it seems, would rather have the freedom to succeed above what others may attain. Very general, but for debate and the above definition, it seems the farther left we get, the more "equality" becomes a catch phrase, and to the right we get more "freedom" used as a term.

So, this question is mostly for lefties. Can we have equality?

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

But would we not then bicker about other "inequalities"? Some would have to live in apartments, while others in houses. Not fair? Lets say we somehow made that fair. Others would whine about their school not being as nice, which we already have in public education.

But lets say by some miracle, all public schools were made equal. Somehow we accomplish that ultimate educational dream.

Would folks then not complain that their comfort levels are not equal? That why do they have to live in Akron, OH, and not San Diego, CA?? Because remember, with equal pay, home prices would be nearly equal, so everyone would want to live in the nicer areas. With no rich people, and no poor people, we'd all be middle class. Who gets to live in the ocean front homes, and who gets stuck in Southwest Atlanta?????

But lets say somehow, some miraculous way, we made all 300,000,000 US citizens equal in pay, education, employment, housing, healthcare. We delivered the total utopian dream!!!

Would we not then have folks crying inequality in stuff like attractiveness of wives? Sounds silly, but imagine everyone is equal, in all aspects of life except physical appearance. Wouldn't the fat single people claim discrimination by the thin people who won't date them? We damn near have that going on now.

Can't we just face a fact: Envy is human nature. We cannot provide total equality. But we can provide equal opportunity. We cannot provide an equal starting point. But we can provide an unlimited stopping point. Somewhere out there are 2 kids born today, 1 kid is born into wealth, another into poverty, and in 40 years, the poor kid will be rich and the rich kid will be poor, because of personal decisions.

So, can we provide total equality?

 

[rdean]

Don't worry. You're not equal. You're something "special".

 

[bucs90]

Don't worry. You're not equal. You're something "special".

Hmm. Was expecting a more intellectual response from liberals.

Can you not defend your ideology? If the goal is social equality, tell me, how do we get there? And is it even possible? I don't think it is possible at all. If we mandated that every American makes $60,000 a year, NO more, NO less, and forced that mandate, would we have equality? No person would have more purchasing power than the next. Would we then have equality????

I'm open to switch my ideology a little if you lefties can convince me.

 

[QUENTIN]

Saw the following quote in another thread:

"Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com"

I thought about it, and pondered a wonderful debate. The left, it seems, wants a large government to guarantee social equality, while the right, it seems, would rather have the freedom to succeed above what others may attain. Very general, but for debate and the above definition, it seems the farther left we get, the more "equality" becomes a catch phrase, and to the right we get more "freedom" used as a term.

So, this question is mostly for lefties. Can we have equality?

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

But would we not then bicker about other "inequalities"? Some would have to live in apartments, while others in houses. Not fair? Lets say we somehow made that fair. Others would whine about their school not being as nice, which we already have in public education.

But lets say by some miracle, all public schools were made equal. Somehow we accomplish that ultimate educational dream.

Would folks then not complain that their comfort levels are not equal? That why do they have to live in Akron, OH, and not San Diego, CA?? Because remember, with equal pay, home prices would be nearly equal, so everyone would want to live in the nicer areas. With no rich people, and no poor people, we'd all be middle class. Who gets to live in the ocean front homes, and who gets stuck in Southwest Atlanta?????

But lets say somehow, some miraculous way, we made all 300,000,000 US citizens equal in pay, education, employment, housing, healthcare. We delivered the total utopian dream!!!

Would we not then have folks crying inequality in stuff like attractiveness of wives? Sounds silly, but imagine everyone is equal, in all aspects of life except physical appearance. Wouldn't the fat single people claim discrimination by the thin people who won't date them? We damn near have that going on now.

Can't we just face a fact: Envy is human nature. We cannot provide total equality. But we can provide equal opportunity. We cannot provide an equal starting point. But we can provide an unlimited stopping point. Somewhere out there are 2 kids born today, 1 kid is born into wealth, another into poverty, and in 40 years, the poor kid will be rich and the rich kid will be poor, because of personal decisions.

So, can we provide total equality?

Who says you need a government to provide social equality? I'd argue that's basically impossible, since there would still be a class in power and a class out of power. Government is one of the primary barriers to equality.

And you fudged the definition even after quoting it. Leftism seeks change in the direction of greater equality, there's nothing contradictory between that and the recognition that total equality is unlikely to achieve and cannot be "provided."

Your picture of a kid born into wealth becoming poor and a kid born into poverty becoming rich is extremely statistically improbable. Not only are those born into poverty in America exceedingly likely to live and die in poverty (making the exceptions notable success stories we read about because they're rare exceptions), but those born into wealth are even more likely to maintain their wealth, it's fairly hard to lose an inherited fortune given the education, social status, investments, and other socioeconomic advantages that come with it. You have to be a true fuckup to lose an entire fortune you were born with, whereas you have to be truly spectacular and a bit lucky to make your own fortune.

Anyway, the equality the left hopes for is the equality of opportunity. That everyone receive equal and quality education, health care, and that their bare needs are met so that the playing field is even and everyone has the freedom to achieve what they can based on their merits rather than what they were born into. It's not the permanent enforcement of rigid equality throughout life, it's just a truly fair shot.

You should read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, it's a great satire of the inherent and absurd problems in a government trying to guarantee "total equality."

Harrison Bergeron

 

[Chris]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

 

[rdean]

Don't worry. You're not equal. You're something "special".

Hmm. Was expecting a more intellectual response from liberals.

Can you not defend your ideology? If the goal is social equality, tell me, how do we get there? And is it even possible? I don't think it is possible at all. If we mandated that every American makes $60,000 a year, NO more, NO less, and forced that mandate, would we have equality? No person would have more purchasing power than the next. Would we then have equality????

I'm open to switch my ideology a little if you lefties can convince me.

Oh stop. Look at your premise:

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

There is nothing intellectual there. It's too dumb. So a doctor should make the same as a fry cook? We all know, there is no such thing as "free". That's why Republicans don't understand how tax cuts for the rich add to the deficit. Or how we can remain world leaders in science and technology without education.

If that's a difficult choice for you to make, all I can say is "pity".

 

[rdean]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

They start off equal. They are all equally free. They should be equal in the eyes of the law.

But the reality, you have people like John McCain getting into the Naval Academy based on Daddy pulling strings. Or George Bush being jumped over thousands more qualified to get into Harvard based on Daddy pulling strings. You see, Affirmative Action is OK as long as it helps only rich white people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Saw the following quote in another thread:

"Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com"

I thought about it, and pondered a wonderful debate. The left, it seems, wants a large government to guarantee social equality, while the right, it seems, would rather have the freedom to succeed above what others may attain. Very general, but for debate and the above definition, it seems the farther left we get, the more "equality" becomes a catch phrase, and to the right we get more "freedom" used as a term.

So, this question is mostly for lefties. Can we have equality?

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

But would we not then bicker about other "inequalities"? Some would have to live in apartments, while others in houses. Not fair? Lets say we somehow made that fair. Others would whine about their school not being as nice, which we already have in public education.

But lets say by some miracle, all public schools were made equal. Somehow we accomplish that ultimate educational dream.

Would folks then not complain that their comfort levels are not equal? That why do they have to live in Akron, OH, and not San Diego, CA?? Because remember, with equal pay, home prices would be nearly equal, so everyone would want to live in the nicer areas. With no rich people, and no poor people, we'd all be middle class. Who gets to live in the ocean front homes, and who gets stuck in Southwest Atlanta?????

But lets say somehow, some miraculous way, we made all 300,000,000 US citizens equal in pay, education, employment, housing, healthcare. We delivered the total utopian dream!!!

Would we not then have folks crying inequality in stuff like attractiveness of wives? Sounds silly, but imagine everyone is equal, in all aspects of life except physical appearance. Wouldn't the fat single people claim discrimination by the thin people who won't date them? We damn near have that going on now.

Can't we just face a fact: Envy is human nature. We cannot provide total equality. But we can provide equal opportunity. We cannot provide an equal starting point. But we can provide an unlimited stopping point. Somewhere out there are 2 kids born today, 1 kid is born into wealth, another into poverty, and in 40 years, the poor kid will be rich and the rich kid will be poor, because of personal decisions.

So, can we provide total equality?

You are going way off to prove that equality is impossible.

300,000,000 people getting $60,000.00 a year will cost $18,000,000,000,000.00 a year. Believe it or not, someone has to pay tor that, because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Add in free health care, housing, a perfect education for everyone, and the cost will probably increase by a factor of 100. Just where is that money going to come from? Who is going to pick up the trash? Do the dishes? Cook the food?

 

[bucs90]

Anyway, the equality the left hopes for is the equality of opportunity. That everyone receive equal and quality education, health care, and that their bare needs are met so that the playing field is even and everyone has the freedom to achieve what they can based on their merits rather than what they were born into. It's not the permanent enforcement of rigid equality throughout life, it's just a truly fair shot.

Harrison Bergeron

So you would agree that Affirmative Action is a discriminatory and unjust policy? That one should be hired based only on their merits and not what they were born into (their skin)?

I think what you are getting at is the idea of an equal starting point in life. Thats never gonna happen. It's true, some start farther ahead than others. But in the US, we can guarantee no boundaries to the level of achievment possible. Yes, it's harder to come from a poor home and make it than it is a rich home. And I recognize, and applaud, the idea that it is a noble thing for rich parents, or middle class parents, to try to get their kids that head start.

I think proper education is absolutely the key. Now, to me the big elephant in the room is how do we get good education to children born into poverty? Thats truly the way to success. We have free public schools. I also believe in school vouchers, which the left....or should I say, the education unions, FIERCLY oppose, although it would help poor kids get to better schools, and pressure bad schools to improve.

We also need just good old fashion parental discipline to help some of these poor kids in school respect the teachers, and want to learn b/c they don't want their parents to be mad at them. Good ole fear of mom and dad helped me get good grades. The discipline thing goes for kids of all wealth classes, but as you and I agree, it's easier to be a bad student when you are rich and end up ok later in life.

 

[bucs90]

[
There is nothing intellectual there. It's too dumb. So a doctor should make the same as a fry cook? We all know, there is no such thing as "free". That's why Republicans don't understand how tax cuts for the rich add to the deficit. Or how we can remain world leaders in science and technology without education.

If that's a difficult choice for you to make, all I can say is "pity".

Oh..........

So you agree that an individuals work, education and job type should entitle him/her to more in life than someone who has a less demanding career choice???

 

[bucs90]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

They start off equal. They are all equally free. They should be equal in the eyes of the law.

But the reality, you have people like John McCain getting into the Naval Academy based on Daddy pulling strings. Or George Bush being jumped over thousands more qualified to get into Harvard based on Daddy pulling strings. You see, Affirmative Action is OK as long as it helps only rich white people.

Or Obama getting into Harvard because he's black?

 

[bucs90]

Saw the following quote in another thread:

"Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com"

I thought about it, and pondered a wonderful debate. The left, it seems, wants a large government to guarantee social equality, while the right, it seems, would rather have the freedom to succeed above what others may attain. Very general, but for debate and the above definition, it seems the farther left we get, the more "equality" becomes a catch phrase, and to the right we get more "freedom" used as a term.

So, this question is mostly for lefties. Can we have equality?

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

But would we not then bicker about other "inequalities"? Some would have to live in apartments, while others in houses. Not fair? Lets say we somehow made that fair. Others would whine about their school not being as nice, which we already have in public education.

But lets say by some miracle, all public schools were made equal. Somehow we accomplish that ultimate educational dream.

Would folks then not complain that their comfort levels are not equal? That why do they have to live in Akron, OH, and not San Diego, CA?? Because remember, with equal pay, home prices would be nearly equal, so everyone would want to live in the nicer areas. With no rich people, and no poor people, we'd all be middle class. Who gets to live in the ocean front homes, and who gets stuck in Southwest Atlanta?????

But lets say somehow, some miraculous way, we made all 300,000,000 US citizens equal in pay, education, employment, housing, healthcare. We delivered the total utopian dream!!!

Would we not then have folks crying inequality in stuff like attractiveness of wives? Sounds silly, but imagine everyone is equal, in all aspects of life except physical appearance. Wouldn't the fat single people claim discrimination by the thin people who won't date them? We damn near have that going on now.

Can't we just face a fact: Envy is human nature. We cannot provide total equality. But we can provide equal opportunity. We cannot provide an equal starting point. But we can provide an unlimited stopping point. Somewhere out there are 2 kids born today, 1 kid is born into wealth, another into poverty, and in 40 years, the poor kid will be rich and the rich kid will be poor, because of personal decisions.

So, can we provide total equality?

You are going way off to prove that equality is impossible.

300,000,000 people getting $60,000.00 a year will cost $18,000,000,000,000.00 a year. Believe it or not, someone has to pay tor that, because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Add in free health care, housing, a perfect education for everyone, and the cost will probably increase by a factor of 100. Just where is that money going to come from? Who is going to pick up the trash? Do the dishes? Cook the food?

Exactly. If we were all financially equal, no one would be willing to be the janitor. Everyone would wanna be the NBA player, movie star, coffee shop owner, etc.

So, we MUST have a rich class, middle class, lower class. There must be benefits to working hard, staying out of trouble, being financially responsible, etc. It means having a more comfortable and prosperous life than most others. The far left agenda is working towards ending that benefit, or severely crippling it, in the name of equality.

It's not natural. It's not the natural progression of human existence to have forced equality.

 

[rdean]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

They start off equal. They are all equally free. They should be equal in the eyes of the law.

But the reality, you have people like John McCain getting into the Naval Academy based on Daddy pulling strings. Or George Bush being jumped over thousands more qualified to get into Harvard based on Daddy pulling strings. You see, Affirmative Action is OK as long as it helps only rich white people.

Or Obama getting into Harvard because he's black?

Except that being the Editor of the Harvard Law Review means he was in the top 10% of his class. He taught "Constitutional Law" at the University Level for 10 years. He went to Harvard based on "student loans" which he didn't finish paying off until his forties. They were "paid off" from the money he received when he wrote two best selling books.

The right just want to hate him so much, that fucking "black guy" in the "WHITE" House, they just can't see him as a hard working American who actually represents the American Dream going from "food stamps" to the nation's highest elected office. They will never see anything good from Obama. They refuse too. The hate is simply too deep.

Like I said before, his name could be "George Washington Lincoln" born in Washington DC under a Cherry tree and delivered by Ron Paul and the right would still hate him. They can deny it all they want, but they are a Conservative Confederate Party that is 90% white. That is the reality.

 

[bucs90]

They start off equal. They are all equally free. They should be equal in the eyes of the law.

But the reality, you have people like John McCain getting into the Naval Academy based on Daddy pulling strings. Or George Bush being jumped over thousands more qualified to get into Harvard based on Daddy pulling strings. You see, Affirmative Action is OK as long as it helps only rich white people.

Or Obama getting into Harvard because he's black?

Except that being the Editor of the Harvard Law Review means he was in the top 10% of his class. He taught "Constitutional Law" at the University Level for 10 years. He went to Harvard based on "student loans" which he didn't finish paying off until his forties. They were "paid off" from the money he received when he wrote two best selling books.

The right just want to hate him so much, that fucking "black guy" in the "WHITE" House, they just can't see him as a hard working American who actually represents the American Dream going from "food stamps" to the nation's highest elected office. They will never see anything good from Obama. They refuse too. The hate is simply too deep.

Like I said before, his name could be "George Washington Lincoln" born in Washington DC under a Cherry tree and delivered by Ron Paul and the right would still hate him. They can deny it all they want, but they are a Conservative Confederate Party that is 90% white. That is the reality.

Wasn't it lefty Chris Matthews who, just for a moment, "Forgot he was black"?

He was very smart at Harvard. Once he got there. But affirmative action got him in. It's not a knock on him, but he had a special circumstance that helped him get in, just as McCain and Bush had assistance getting in. It's just factual.

And I'm not racist. I think his white half is a sorry president too.

It's your side that was heralding him as the "FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT"!!!!

It's kinda funny, watching you people on the left talk about race. You left wingers are the most race obsessed people on the planet.

I'm saying Affirmative Action should be tossed out, because to me, race means NOTHING. It shouldn't even be a question on job or college applications. No one should know what race you are until the day you check into your dorm.

But it does matter, for some reason, and the left is obsessed with it.

So when you cry about McCain getting into Navy, or Bush into Harvard, with assistance from their fathers, dont cry more when I mention Obama got into Harvard through affirmative action.

Now, his days at Columbia U???? Dirty little secret. No one remembers him. He is not in any pictures. No one from the law classes he supposedly attended, you know, the 95% white law classes, remembers the cool, charismatic black guy ever being there. Hmmmm.

Anyhoo.............you show me a poor, white kid on food stamps get into Harvard.

And looking at Harvard, they produced Bush and Obama, and they both sucked. Maybe our next president should be from LSU, or U. of South Carolina, or a community college, because the Ivy League hasn't done shit for us.

 

[u2scram]

""The lefties want "equality". Is equality possible?""

why do conservatives so often start a thread with a silly assumption about "lefties" and then proceed on as if their assumption was in any way correct?

 

[JBeukema]

What, then, does it mean to speak of equality? Do we mean to say one man is necessarily equal to another in any objective sense? Certainly not, for such an assertion is absurd on its face- men are not all equal in their build, their character (either in their natural or inherent disposition or in the sum of their natural disposition and their experience), or in their physical and mental capacities and potential. Indeed, the market itself, the division of labour, and the specialization which makes the modern age possible are built upon this very fact of nature. Equality, then is not to be misconstrued as the equal nature, potential, attributes, or value of all persons (consider the fair judge against the diseased thief), but is rather to be understood as the equality of all citizens before the law and the equal right of all members of our society to develop their own potential free of discrimination based upon their race, sex, colour, or place and caste of birth.

The Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have long had great difficulty comprehending the concept of equality. The Liberal loves to speak as though men are widgets or some other mass-produced product of industry, ‘created equal’, built to within a micron of some standard, and devoid of individual variation and potential. Yet the very Laizze-Faire market they espouse depends upon the inequality of men in their shrewdness, ingenuity, ideas, industriousness, and mental and physical capacities in order to function. Furthermore, the birth of ill and misshapen children, the variation of human skin colour, and common experience with a number of individuals all show us the variation with our species and render absurd such assertions of human equality and uniformity. Only by appealing to vague metaphysics or simply refusing to address the issue can the Liberal respond to these realities. The ‘Progressive’ (as they dub themselves), on the other hand, takes the Liberal’s rhetoric of ‘equality’ as a commandment that men must be made equal by taking from the successful to enrich the incompetent and showing favour in all things to failures and the idle over the competent and industrious. Yet such measures of authoritarian collectivism as the ‘Progressives’ have enacted and continue to advocate have not resulted in the equal condition and results they promise, as the incompetent squander what is handed them and the successful become more cunning in protecting their earnings from seizure. Rather than moving us towards egalitarianism, they perpetuate class antagonisms and add fuel to class warfare- hinting, perhaps, at the neo-Marxian roots of much of their philosophy. Whether they do this merely to secure votes and further their own careers, or out of total ignorance, or for more nefarious reasons, I leave to your own judgment. Regardless, the results remain unchanged. And what is the result of this indefensible and intelligent preference shown towards the wicked, the incompetent, and the incredibly flawed? It's that the ills which afflict them and which they inflict upon the rest of humanity are perpetuated and magnified indefinitely as a culture of vice, laziness, and incompetence is cultured and nurtured. This is not equality and it is most certainly not progress. Doubtless, both the Liberal and the ‘Progressive’ have failed us.

 

[JBeukema]

Total economic or material equality is impossible, as two men may have equivalent possessions yet value them differently, causing them to be unequal in the wealth they experience, as the subjective value of their property is not equal.

At least, this remains true so long as men are individuals capable of independent thought.

 

[JBeukema]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

Really?

Unequal in form

unequal in status

unequal in resources and opportunity

in what sense, save the most vague metaphysical rhetoric, are they equal?

 

[shintao]

Saw the following quote in another thread:

"Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com"

I thought about it, and pondered a wonderful debate. The left, it seems, wants a large government to guarantee social equality, while the right, it seems, would rather have the freedom to succeed above what others may attain. Very general, but for debate and the above definition, it seems the farther left we get, the more "equality" becomes a catch phrase, and to the right we get more "freedom" used as a term.

So, this question is mostly for lefties. Can we have equality?

What if we could construct a government that guaranteed equal income for all citizens? Every citizen in the USA would make $60,000 a year. I'm sure we have enough $$ in the USA to make that happen. No more, no less.

Every citizen would get free, gov't provided healthcare. No costs, ever, for any treatment.

Every citizen would get free school. College and high school. And housing.

But would we not then bicker about other "inequalities"? Some would have to live in apartments, while others in houses. Not fair? Lets say we somehow made that fair. Others would whine about their school not being as nice, which we already have in public education.

But lets say by some miracle, all public schools were made equal. Somehow we accomplish that ultimate educational dream.

Would folks then not complain that their comfort levels are not equal? That why do they have to live in Akron, OH, and not San Diego, CA?? Because remember, with equal pay, home prices would be nearly equal, so everyone would want to live in the nicer areas. With no rich people, and no poor people, we'd all be middle class. Who gets to live in the ocean front homes, and who gets stuck in Southwest Atlanta?????

But lets say somehow, some miraculous way, we made all 300,000,000 US citizens equal in pay, education, employment, housing, healthcare. We delivered the total utopian dream!!!

Would we not then have folks crying inequality in stuff like attractiveness of wives? Sounds silly, but imagine everyone is equal, in all aspects of life except physical appearance. Wouldn't the fat single people claim discrimination by the thin people who won't date them? We damn near have that going on now.

Can't we just face a fact: Envy is human nature. We cannot provide total equality. But we can provide equal opportunity. We cannot provide an equal starting point. But we can provide an unlimited stopping point. Somewhere out there are 2 kids born today, 1 kid is born into wealth, another into poverty, and in 40 years, the poor kid will be rich and the rich kid will be poor, because of personal decisions.

So, can we provide total equality?

No we can't go insane with equality, nor does anyone I know want that as a goal. And we are so far from that goal that you could light your finger on fire and make a wish before you blow it out. And you will never have freedom either, such as the utopia Libertarians dream about on their feathered pillows. Freedom in the extreme leads to chaos.

 

[rdean]

Or Obama getting into Harvard because he's black?

Except that being the Editor of the Harvard Law Review means he was in the top 10% of his class. He taught "Constitutional Law" at the University Level for 10 years. He went to Harvard based on "student loans" which he didn't finish paying off until his forties. They were "paid off" from the money he received when he wrote two best selling books.

The right just want to hate him so much, that fucking "black guy" in the "WHITE" House, they just can't see him as a hard working American who actually represents the American Dream going from "food stamps" to the nation's highest elected office. They will never see anything good from Obama. They refuse too. The hate is simply too deep.

Like I said before, his name could be "George Washington Lincoln" born in Washington DC under a Cherry tree and delivered by Ron Paul and the right would still hate him. They can deny it all they want, but they are a Conservative Confederate Party that is 90% white. That is the reality.

Wasn't it lefty Chris Matthews who, just for a moment, "Forgot he was black"?

He was very smart at Harvard. Once he got there. But affirmative action got him in. It's not a knock on him, but he had a special circumstance that helped him get in, just as McCain and Bush had assistance getting in. It's just factual.

And I'm not racist. I think his white half is a sorry president too.

It's your side that was heralding him as the "FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT"!!!!

It's kinda funny, watching you people on the left talk about race. You left wingers are the most race obsessed people on the planet.

I'm saying Affirmative Action should be tossed out, because to me, race means NOTHING. It shouldn't even be a question on job or college applications. No one should know what race you are until the day you check into your dorm.

But it does matter, for some reason, and the left is obsessed with it.

So when you cry about McCain getting into Navy, or Bush into Harvard, with assistance from their fathers, dont cry more when I mention Obama got into Harvard through affirmative action.

Now, his days at Columbia U???? Dirty little secret. No one remembers him. He is not in any pictures. No one from the law classes he supposedly attended, you know, the 95% white law classes, remembers the cool, charismatic black guy ever being there. Hmmmm.

Anyhoo.............you show me a poor, white kid on food stamps get into Harvard.

And looking at Harvard, they produced Bush and Obama, and they both sucked. Maybe our next president should be from LSU, or U. of South Carolina, or a community college, because the Ivy League hasn't done shit for us.

At least two other students who knew Obama at Comumbia, Sohale Siddiqi, and Phil
Boerner, right, and his college roommate, Barack Obama, in their New York City apartment in the early 1980s

Columbia celebrates Barack Obama, Class of ’83 | Politics | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Where Obama gets his desi-ness from - Sepia Mutiny

But affirmative action got him in. You won't find one. He didn't get AA.

Anyhoo.............you show me a poor, white kid on food stamps get into Harvard.

Christian Anfinsen was born in Monessen, Pennsylvania into a family of Norwegian American immigrants. Nobel prize winner from Harvard.

Stanley Kunitz was born to a dressmaker. His father committed suicide six weeks before he was born. Pulitzer Prize winner who graduated from Harvard.

All you have to do is a search on Harvard Alumni and there are dozens of these stories.

Your entire post is nothing more than the rantings of a racist fuck. You hate him so much, you just assume he must be all those awful things you imagine. You have to be a "confederate Republican".