Yes, politics is full of generalities. The correct response to this is to make general statements instead of absolute statements.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I can live with generalities.
It's the Modern Liberal types that cannot. You can never get them to discard the exception.

Here's another clue..
You can never get them to prioritize from best to worst. That requires judgment. And when you throw out all judgment you end up taking the worst possible path.
Which leads us back to Rei calling for massive Statism/fascism bordering on dictatorship.

I really have no idea what you're on about at this point. You're taking every conceivable avenue available to avoid the original topic.

can we talk about giraffe's now?

Amazing how a good night's sleep can clear things up.

Now I see that Dan is attempting to call me a Showa Nationalist by sleight of hand (I'm not falling for that old 'politically incorrect' trap!), and then to somehow connect that to Modern Liberalism. Because you know, not only would each accusation be a little bit ridiculous alone, but the combination is even more ridiculous.

So I'll just have some fun with this post and actually troll you for once, Dan.


Charles Edouard Gabriel Leroux - Marche Defile de L'armée Japonaise.


Because you know, Modern Liberalism is totally compatible with embracing death as much as your enemy embraces life.


Oh wait, no, not really.

evidence:

We should pass a law allowing consenting Giraffes and Donkeys to marry. It isn't interspecies if they both consent!

I'm pretty sure DanDaMan won't like that though! Fooking Conservatives... holding up progress that's going to happen anyway!

Well, the prevailing logic is you only need to love each other.
Giraffes & donkeys, men & goats, fathers & daughters, brother & sister or even brothers.
It's all consensual love.

I just don't understand why, if they do it regularly in Arkansas and West Virginia we should worry about it DanDaMan.

I mean... if people there already do it...like, a lot...

Why not let the law catch up?

That's fine. Just let each state have the sovereign right to vote on it.

re: expiration of the TEMPORARY bush tax reductions. two points that indicate that republicans are liars and phonies.

liars: they compromised that the tax reductions in question would be temporary during the voting on the tax reduction bill some years ago. that was a few years ago. NOW they make no mention whatsoever that their bill was put forth with the stipulation that tax reductions would be temporary. not a peep. they howl constantly that what we have here is not expiration of a temporary tax reduction but a tax increase. at best a half truth, at worst they welshed on their word and lied. they know, of course, that the majority of people are dumb enough to not see thu their gambit.

phonies: they shreik about the obama deficits and then support a measure that would result in a decreased cash inflow. hmmm, decreased cash inflow generally results in increases in deficits.

here's a thought esoteric in it's simplicity: over the past 10 or 15 years wealth in the upper 10% of the population has been increasing while wealth in the lower 90% of the population has been decreasing concurrently with an increase in debt. America's economic infrastructure has evolved to accomodate spending by/for about 300 million persons. when 90% (say 270 million people)of these persons experience diminished wealth it is not likely that the 10% (say 30 million people) will make up for the lost spending power of 270 million people. therefore the economic infrastructure that was in place to accomodate spending by 270 million people must contract. this contraction has a negative ripple effect throughout the economy and, if past the tipping point, could conceivable bring down the whole house of cards. to put simply, greed run amok will eventually kill the goose who lays the golden egg. this is human nature and it will happen because human nature does not change. i posit that one of many reasons for America's current economic woes is an increased concentration of more wealth into the hands of fewer people.

damn!!! i better get this one off to rush windbaugh right quick, he will certainly agree and extoll this truth for hour after hour with his wonderful authoritively hypnotic voice.

weather up here on the lake continues to be warm and sunny. perfect for rowing and jogging and swimming.

Of course you know full well this process really began in earnest under Regan. The man who cut taxes for the elite, cut school lunch programs for the needy leaving a ridiculous number of children hungry, expanded the powers of the federal government in a multitude of ways, and essentially set the bar for military spending and imperialist jaunts through the southern hemisphere, all the while claiming to be a small government conservative.

He was an opportunist and a complete and utter shill for elite interests. Howard Zinn talks about just how much wealth increased for the top during the Reagan years, and it's a figure that makes even your modern figure blush.

And "conservatives" call him their hero.

He cut taxes for every one, because he is opposed to dogmatic forced charity like leftists.

And forced charity programs for children just encourage single women to become single mothers. There is a wide body of research that shows this:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... Harms-Kids



Some women thinks, hey, if I have kids and I can't afford them, it's OK because the government will feed them for me.

Illegitimacy rates for blacks in particular have skyrocketed as welfare has increased. Delinquents, most of them from single mother households, come to schools just for their free lunch:

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... is-it.html



Puritanical leftists like you don't care about pragmatic reality though. All you think about is the leftist dogma that people being wealthy is bad, and that if they are forced to be charitable, every thing will improve.

China is getting immensely wealthy, and all of their classes are rising, including a new class of super rich:

http://www.nitrobahn.com/nitro-barn/bes ... e-wedding/

Oh, you Libertarians are so cunning, but also a little predictable because you are essentially simplified Marxists running in reverse, which is why you do this:


Now, I'm not going to accuse you of racism. I'm relatively sure that you are not a racist, you are actually just doing narrow economic determinism.

It's cunning because you are expecting that your opponent will be also seeking to avoid appearing racist or class conscious, and so rather than me asking a question like "Is it black culture that is a factor in why the application of welfare to their communities causes a more pronounced retrenchment ratio than on their white lower-class counterparts?", and, "Is the culture of the lower class in need of reform?", you instead expect me to jump to the economic conclusion - "Welfare causes people to make poor decisions, let's cut it."


Thankfully, I'm non-liberal and anglo-japanese (not a reputation for economism or political correctness there!) and so I can ask the culture and class-based question rather than the economic one, quite naturally:

Is it black culture that is a factor in why the application of welfare to their communities causes a more pronounced retrenchment ratio than on their white lower-class counterparts?

Is the culture of the lower class in need of reform?


This tactic seems to be part of a larger narrative of portraying all recipients of welfare as some sort of alien people who live among us, who are supposedly "made alien by welfare payments", and since you know that most people will never dare to criticise the culture for fear of being caused racist, you know that they will fall right into the politically correct trap and decide to go with your economically deterministic conclusion, which is that "welfare does not help people, so cut it".

I don't have that fear (since I'm race conscious but not racist, and I'm confident that I can't be accused of unfair racial discrimination). So again:

Is it black culture that is a factor in why the application of welfare to their communities causes a more pronounced retrenchment ratio than on their white lower-class counterparts? I would submit that it is entirely probable, and that the problem can be fixed by greater research into the matter, better education, and more positive role models.

Your anti-welfare rhetoric seems to be designed to fluster the Left and the Centre-left, which is precisely why it didn't work on me.

Do you have an elite in mind to make their lives better?

Pretty much, yes. Those of us who have the time and the money actually have an obligation to contribute and to argue for coherent social programs within the political parties we are a member of, so that action can be taken to operate on the 'soul' of the people.

That's called the 'moral underclass discourse', where we focus not only on the money that we are injecting into their communities, but also on the values and the aspirations and the way of behaving that the government and its associated organisations will try to inculcate into those communities through the school system, etc.

To push a discourse and have it take effect requires public institutions to be on board with it, and municipalities to be given authority to act, and it requires that experts be on board to help craft that discourse and to propose realistic and sensible values that people can actually live up to (in other words, not that impossible Judeo-christian morality that they will just ignore anyway, we know that doesn't work).

All of that costs money, and what's needed are politicians that are ready to be serious about spending that money and spending it intelligently like that so that the immediate needs for welfare can be met, but the community they live in can also be transformed at the same time to prevent the situation from becoming a retrenchment into poverty again.

^ You're dreaming. A "race conscious" politician will never survive the modern political environment. Proposing that an elite "fix" black culture through big government programs is a completely impractical proposal. All such an elitist approach will do is cause internal strife.

It's better to simply explain what's happening. Welfare is increasing illegitimacy rates in all population groups, and especially in the black community. Leave the theorizing to others. Given the facts that we are aware of, which is always admittedly going to be incomplete, a reasonable person would support the libertarian position of eliminating welfarism, and at least support the Constitutional position of not imposing a blanket welfare program on the whole nation through federal programs, and rather leave it to each state.

See that RP?
She's actually not racist... she's a "classist".
She thinks she's a better debater because race means nothing to her.
What she really is is a class discriminator. She is a color blind KKK intellectual elite dictating to the "little people".

Tell us Rei, should abortion always be available in order to keep the numbers of the "little people" down?
Especially the black people since they make up 40% of abortion clinic eugenics?

Whoa... Where the hell did you come from?



No, he didn't. Revisionist history doesn't work for someone who was alive when he was president.



No, because he was a fascist bastard who sucked bourgeois teat and repaid them for the favor.



Bullshit. Your kind always says this shit, but the truth is I have yet to actually meet one of these "welfare mothers". Furthermore, even if this phenomenon is true (which is absurd because you just don't make enough on welfare to actually live very well anyway. "Yeah I get an extra $5k yearly for each kid! Who Woo!" Yeah sorry, that don't pay bills. It's a negative sum game there DickCheneyAlways)



There is a wide body of research into how the ruling classes get people like you to be their shills too.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html



Some bourgeois douchebag teat sucker thinks: "Hey, I can attack poor women on welfare because the stupid will buy into it, and they are a defenseless minority! I can get re-elected and I can even squeeze in tax breaks for my elite buddies because the stupid will believe I don't want big government, as if there is such a thing as a small government anyway! SUCKERS!"



Funny how all this shit corresponds to increased poverty rates and decreased income isn't it? But for racists like you, you'll just say that's endemic to the race, won't you? Or will you just play a pussy on the internet and deny your racism to my face while advocating racist policies behind my back?



I don't know DickCheneyAlways, do suck-up rightists like you actually care about anything but money? Is money always your bottom line? Will you measure everything based on the money, profit, and income?



HELLO OFF-TOPIC! I mean, DickCheneyAlways! What the fuck does that have to do with anything at all, whatsoever? Are you just making shit up as you go? Jesus man... That bit at the end is just crazy shit. Why on earth would you post it? Why do I care that a small number of Chinese are benefiting from Capitalism? Far more are still in poverty.

Furthermore, why do you fucking leap to this rediculous conclusion that I endorse whatever it is you seem to think I endorse simply because I not only called Reagan for the spade his is, but also took the time to mention the very large military your type endorses, painted it as the big government program it is, and watched as you failed to address that in any way. Preferring instead to post off-topic pictures of some shit in China and to once again reveal your racism for all of PoFo to see.

Good job DickCheneyAlways. I hope you actually get a crumb for your bourgeois politics and you aren't doing this without getting paid something.