Pro-illegal freaks at Columbia U at it again.

[hugo]

Can you even define what "liberal" is? Looks like you're using the Bill 'O Reilly definition, where "liberal" simply means someone who wants to raise taxes or "cause trouble." Either that or you've assigned the practices of a few Democrats to all "liberals."


Read this:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jackson__060609_liberal_and_proud_3a_l.htm


When it comes to things like spending, affirmative action, and border policy, anyway, I can see the "conservative" view. When it comes to personal freedoms, if you're NOT a liberal in the traditional sense, you're most likely a bigot. Libertarians are a lot closer to liberals in the true sense than either Democrats or Republicans, though.

Go back to your anti-Christian bigotry. The Patriot Act was passed by a vote of 98-1. By your definitions Abe and Franklin were arch conservatives due to their infringements on civil liberties. I am a classical liberal, not a modern "liberal" a term stolen by the socialists. Go back to your pinko-commie world where everyone should be equal except them damn Christians.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Go back to your anti-Christian bigotry.

Wha ...? I'll have you know that I do beleive in God, in the sense of a self-creating paradox like Aristotle's First Cause or the Big Bang. I see religions as different ways to interpret God. I was raised as a Christian, and I consider that the interpretation which best suits me. I'm a theist with Christian leanings ... Or a non-fundamentalist Christian. Whichever way you want to phrase it, I actually hold Christianity above other religions on a personal level due to my upbringing.


But no, this is just you trying to turn the "bigot" statement back on me via the Tu Quoque fallacy.

"OMG, you support people not being forced by law to live in accordance to traditional Christian standards?!?!? You must be a bigot against Christians!"

The Patriot Act was passed by a vote of 98-1.

I won't even get into the various arguments for how shady it was that it passed so quickly, much less the fact that some have stated they didn't even read it. The mere fact that the government is totally controlled by right-wing zealots alone makes any point you may've been trying to make here meaningless.

By your definitions Abe and Franklin were arch conservatives due to their infringements on civil liberties.

They were. Most historical political figures are tyrannical assholes. It's all a matter of how tyrannical they were. Abe and Franklin happened to be progressive for their times, thus we remember them well. Same with Plato.

I am a classical liberal, not a modern "liberal" a term stolen by the socialists.

I'm not a socialist or a Democrat or a communist or even a libertarian. I'm closer to an anarchist. I acknowledge that anarchy can't work right now because people aren't personally responsible enough for it to work. Some of the posts in this thread alone prove that. I want the social structure to be as close to anarchy as is possible while maintaining order.

Go back to your pinko-commie world where everyone should be equal except them damn Christians.

No, in my world, everyone should be allowed to do WHATEVER they want, so long as they're hurting no one but themselves. I'm against oppression in general, regardless of the excuse. And don't bring up this "pinko" bullshit.

Do you even know what true communism is? Read The Communist Manifesto. Marx's ideas were pretty damn good for his time and the fact that capitalism then was MUCH more corrupt than it is now. His only problem is that he never came up with a true political structure as such. The original Communism was more of a philosophy than a specific political structure. This allowed for Vladimir Lenin to later come up with the idea that the classless society must be obtained by a small, elite group. The 20th century Leninist Communism that we saw in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. is NOTHING like the original idea and the actual government structure was much closer to traditional right-wing totalitarianism than Marx's liberal social philosophy.


As George Orwell said:

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

 

[hugo]

I think our boy, TooStupidToPost, has revealed he is a communist. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is when the state withers away. Of course everyone is then supposed to work together in brotherly love. There is little that is rational in Marx's writings. When private property rights are abolished civil liberties soon follow. The pinko-commie attack on Christianity goes back to Marx. States cannot have absolute power where religion is allowed to exist. The so-called "opiate of the masses" helped lead the downfall of the tyranny in Poland and the eventual downfall of the USSR. The all-powerful state don't want another force tugging at the proletariat. Oddly, so-called Communists believe the state must get bigger and bigger until some majical moment appears and the state implodes and somehow produces economic cooperation among all.

You know ya got a left-wing nutcase folks whenever you see the words bigot, exploitation, Ashcroft and a reference to some FOX News or talk radio persona frequently utilized.

 

[hugo]

Read The Communist Manifesto. Marx's ideas were pretty damn good for his time....


[/I]

That says it all folks. I suggesr reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" instead.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

I think our boy, TooStupidToPost, has revealed he is a communist.

Sure thing, Mr. McCarthy.

Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is when the state withers away. Of course everyone is then supposed to work together in brotherly love. There is little that is rational in Marx's writings. When private property rights are abolished civil liberties soon follow.

It's called personal responsibility. He argued for a classless society because of the oppression of civil liberties. What he envisioned was a bunch of people, all equal, working together for a greater good. No exploitation whatsoever. It was Lenin who twisted it into a statist totalitarian regime. The original idea was similar to an anarchist philosphy.



Anarchy is THE IDEAL. If everyone were responsible enough to handle anarchy, we'd be able to distribute our resources in such a way as to end poverty, hunger, virtually all forms of suffering and repression ... It would be a utopia. The problem is that people aren't responsible, so we have to be pragmatists.


Marx's problem was NOT that he was oppressive -- he was clearly against all oppression. His problem was that he was an idealist, and left his philosophies open to interpretation to the point that Lenin was able to twist them into an abominable mockery of their original message.

The pinko-commie attack on Christianity goes back to Marx.

Please. There are many philosophers and even founding fathers who attack Christianity and organized religion in general. Lumping them together under the banner of "communism" is a pahetic McCarthyist tactic.

Nietsche was a far greater Christian detractor than Marx.

States cannot have absolute power where religion is allowed to exist. The so-called "opiate of the masses" helped lead the downfall of the tyranny in Poland and the eventual downfall of the USSR. The all-powerful state don't want another force tugging at the proletariat. Oddly, so-called Communists believe the state must get bigger and bigger until some majical moment appears and the state implodes and somehow produces economic cooperation among all.

It's the theory of relative deprivation. The proles eventually realize that they are being exploited and rebel, leading to a classless society. Looking through the lense of Marx's time, that was a logical conclusion. Some of the flaws in his beleifs, of course, were the fact that we have about 6 classes as opposed to the 3 he envisioned, and capitalism improved greatly. That and, as I said, he left his ideas open to interpretation to such a degree that Lenin was able to twist them for his own ends.

You know ya got a left-wing nutcase folks whenever you see the words bigot, exploitation, Ashcroft and a reference to some FOX News or talk radio persona frequently utilized.

When it's in response to things like:

Go back to your anti-Christian bigotry.

Go back to your pinko-commie world where everyone should be equal except them damn Christians.

We have gays wanting to get married.

Illegal Mexican immigrants (excuse me>>>INVADERS) are using their political leverage to destroy what is America. How is it that aliens invaders have political leverage? Because they have ultra-liberal pinkos on the inside. Bleeding hearts that feel for every sorry ******* with a sob story. What the **** is wrong with Mexico? Why is that country so bad off that millions of their people feel the need to come here and leech?

The truth is ugly. Mexico sucks. Mexicans suck. To refute this you fly in the face of the obvious. Legal Mexican immigrants that assimilate and become part of America, rather then take part of America, are good by me. The rest need to be killed. Executed for assailing the American way.

... The words "bigot" and "exploitation" are inevitible. OTOH, I don't see what part of MY posts could lead anyone but a moral tyrant to use the words "pinko-commie" and "bigotry towards Christians."

Hell, I never even MENTIONED religion until you brought it up. Apparently, not being a hatemonger ranting about gays and Mexicans equates in your warped, twisted world view to not being a Christian. Why don't you read that link I sent you? It's quite accurate in the fact that Christ was much like a social liberal today, talking to the downtrodden whom others didn't beleive were worthy of attention, and standing up to the corrupt Roman government.

It's amazing how much many self-proclaimed "Christians" these days equate Christianity to hate and repression of minority groups, when Christ himself was all about the exact opposite.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

That says it all folks. I suggesr reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" instead.

I didn't say I agreed with him, you jackass. He was wrong, but he was trying to form a positive solution to the vast exploitation that DID exist in his time. My personal favorite political books are 1984, The Prince, and Brave New World. But the point is that many right-wing ****tards pretend that Leninist communism is the same thing as Marx's original communist philosophy, therefore equating liberals with Leninist communism, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.

 

[Jhony5]

Posted by: ToDumbTo****ingThink

And unless you're a bigot, that's a problem ... Why??? I can see wanting to preserve the name of marriage, but they should have every right to form civil unions that give them all the same rights as if they were married. The only issue here is the name of "marriage." Civil unions should make this a non-issue.

Well, this is fodder for another debate. Marriage is what it is. The same ignorant argument your stating could be parroted by polygamist and otherwise. Gays have been accepted and their rights protected by legislature. That wasn't good enough apparently. Flat out, two dudes getting married is ****ing dumb. Maybe just my opinion, however my opinion is in the majority and is supported by the law of the land. Nuff bout that.

No, they just complain about certain exploitations.

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders? Exploitation is a mother****er sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO. Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

Um, no. They blame the white folks in the government for the shitty response to the hurricane ... Not for causing it. They're blaming the people for NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

I concur that the government ****ed up on Katrina. However that does not do away with the images of countless black standing around, hands extended, asking for the magic handouts they have grown so very accustomed to. As the old saying goes. One cannot be helped unless one helps themselves. My comment towards the Katrina issue was more directed at the popular belief among the black community that the levees were sabotaged by whitey as a means of removing blacks from New Orleans. Check the new Spike Lee movie if ya don't follow me on that one bro.

This sounds kinda like a bigotted comment.

Bigoted, maybe. True, definitely.

... Aaaaand this is all a bunch of bigotted stereotyping of Mexican people.

Look guy, I can drive down the scenic streets of Greenwood Indiana any time of any day of the week, and what I see is exactly what I described. Mexicans walking down the road to the liquor store. This isn't a "stereotype". Its whats happening in the once white and relatively crime free streets of Greenwood. I worked in a Kroger store in Greenwood on 3rd shift as the night manager. I swear to you on my child, EVERY dam night I had to take time out of my busy schedule dealing with drunk ass Mexicans and their beer fetish. One of the most common issues I had with them was them coming in past 3am ( the cutoff time for alcohol sales in Indiana ) trying to buy beer. Enter the language barrier hindered further by the level of intoxication. I spent so much time doing this that I had a college kid that worked for me and knew fluent Spanish, write down the message I was so often trying to convey to drunk illegals, onto a piece of paper so I could save myself the grief. Sometimes the truth sounds ugly. Sometime it sounds "stereotypical". But nevertheless, the truth is the truth is the truth.

And this is just nationalistic bullshit.

So your telling me that Mexico DOESN'T suck? Go ahead mutha****a, say it. I dare you. I've been to Mexico, and believe me when I say, IT SUCKS!!! Why else are millions of their people risking life and limb to leave the place?

Go ahead and tell me Mexico doesn't suck. Then tell me why it doesn't suck.

Can't do it? I can. Mexico SUCKS because Mexicans SUCK.

 

[hugo]

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders? Exploitation is a mother****er sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO. Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

Exploitation..it is the pinko commies favorite term whenever their is an inequality. Regardless of the reason for that inequality.

The fact is all empowered commies,e.g. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pot, inevitably grossly violate the civil liberties of their citizens. I don't see the same level of gross civil liberties being violated by the followers of Locke. This is because the modern liberals e.g. Mao, Stalin, Pot, Kennedy, Kerry, unlike the classical liberals do not understand that rights to private property is a civil right and history tells us that when this basic civil right is violated all civil rights are in jeopardy. Ya would think if them Mexicans were being so badly exploited they would stop coming here.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Posted by: ToDumbTo****ingThink

Did you come up with that all by yourself, or did your Imperial Wizard mama help you out?

Well, this is fodder for another debate. Marriage is what it is. The same ignorant argument your stating could be parroted by polygamist and otherwise. Gays have been accepted and their rights protected by legislature. That wasn't good enough apparently. Flat out, two dudes getting married is ****ing dumb. Maybe just my opinion, however my opinion is in the majority and is supported by the law of the land. Nuff bout that.

Um, again, CIVIL UNIONS. Name of marriage is protected, but gays are allowed the same rights as married couples by making a similar commitment. Everything you just said is an irrelevent dodge of this simple solution to the problem.

Exploitations??? Tell me you didn't just say that in defense of the invaders?

No, I said it in condemnation of places that hire them en masse and treat them like early 19th century workers to save some bucks from hiring people who are qualified. Wal-Mart, for instance.

Exploitation is a mother****er sneaking his illiterate uneducated ass illegally across our borders, breeding like a rabbit, drawing on every form of welfare meant to be extended to Americans, crowding our jails and court systems with his drunk ass, and sending all the money he earns by working illegally BACK TO MEXICO.

That's one form of exploitation, yes. And what I mentioned above is ALSO exploitation.

Google Western union money transfers to Mexico. Its god dam astonishing how much American money ends up back in Mexico. EXPLOITATION, you bet your ass!

What is your insistence on this black-and-white good guy/bad guy Old West view of the world? It sounds like all you hear is "you're with all us Americans or you're with them damn dirty Mexicans." You don't acknowledge the complexities of the issue.

I concur that the government ****ed up on Katrina. However that does not do away with the images of countless black standing around, hands extended, asking for the magic handouts they have grown so very accustomed to.

Because white people never do that, eh? And the media gives full and equal coverage of beggers of every race?

As the old saying goes. One cannot be helped unless one helps themselves. My comment towards the Katrina issue was more directed at the popular belief among the black community that the levees were sabotaged by whitey as a means of removing blacks from New Orleans. Check the new Spike Lee movie if ya don't follow me on that one bro.

I don't usually watch Spike Lee movies, with the exception of Summer of Sam. His tripe sounds about as credible as the theory that illegal Mexican immigrants are gaining vast political power and are about to infiltrate all levels of our government.

Bigoted, maybe. True, definitely.

If you really beleive all Mexicans fit your sterotype any more than all Americans fit the stereotype I mentioned, you're truly a fanatic on this issue.

Look guy, I can drive down the scenic streets of Greenwood Indiana any time of any day of the week, and what I see is exactly what I described. Mexicans walking down the road to the liquor store. This isn't a "stereotype". Its whats happening in the once white and relatively crime free streets of Greenwood. I worked in a Kroger store in Greenwood on 3rd shift as the night manager. I swear to you on my child, EVERY dam night I had to take time out of my busy schedule dealing with drunk ass Mexicans and their beer fetish. One of the most common issues I had with them was them coming in past 3am ( the cutoff time for alcohol sales in Indiana ) trying to buy beer. Enter the language barrier hindered further by the level of intoxication. I spent so much time doing this that I had a college kid that worked for me and knew fluent Spanish, write down the message I was so often trying to convey to drunk illegals, onto a piece of paper so I could save myself the grief. Sometimes the truth sounds ugly. Sometime it sounds "stereotypical". But nevertheless, the truth is the truth is the truth.

Indeed, and do you know how many Americans I know that fit the stereotypes I mentioned? Or how many decent Mexican Americans who contribute to society that I've met? There is some truth in every stereotype; it's when you try to apply it in an all-encompassing sense to a particular demographic that you've lost touch with reality.

So your telling me that Mexico DOESN'T suck? Go ahead mutha****a, say it. I dare you. I've been to Mexico, and believe me when I say, IT SUCKS!!! Why else are millions of their people risking life and limb to leave the place?

Parts of it suck, sure. Likewise, people risk their lives to leave Compton. Black people used to risk their lives to leave the American South. Again, you continue with these all-encompassing blanket statements that showcase a dangerously simplistic world view.

If all of Mexico was as you say, why do so many Americans flock to Cancun every year for Spring Break? Us damn dirty American gringos, refusing to stay in our own country! We can't even learn Spanish before we go over there!

Can't do it? I can. Mexico SUCKS because Mexicans SUCK.

Blanket statement. Are you saying that ALL Americans are peachy keen perfect little angels, superior to Mexicans or people of other countries by their very nature?

What really sucks is blind, ignorant nationalism and people calling for a police state.

 

[hugo]

I didn't say I agreed with him, you jackass. He was wrong, but he was trying to form a positive solution to the vast exploitation that DID exist in his time. My personal favorite political books are 1984, The Prince, and Brave New World. But the point is that many right-wing ****tards pretend that Leninist communism is the same thing as Marx's original communist philosophy, therefore equating liberals with Leninist communism, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.

There was never any vast exploitation. Capitalism was not as efficient, nor had as much capital to work, with as it does today. Those who labor voluntarily are not exploited (the pinko commie's favorite word).

I suggest everyone read THE MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS by Burton W. Folsom

What is funny is ****tards who are too stupid to realize that the empowered followers of Marx always form tolitarian states.

 

[hugo]

The federal government did not do a hell of a lot for the San Francisco quake victims of 1906 or the Galveston hurricane victims of 1900. Some of them whining Katrina victims are still getting free rent.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Exploitation..it is the pinko commies favorite term whenever their is an inequality. Regardless of the reason for that inequality.

In this case, I'm dealing with someone who is in favor of government exploitation.

The fact is all empowered commies,e.g. Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pot, inevitably grossly violate the civil liberties of their citizens.

And all of them (arguably barring Mao) follow LENINIST COMMUNISM!!! Leninist communism is NOT true communism in the traditional sense. It is using the name of communism as an excuse to establish a dictatorship without the people rebelling. Yes, THEY are totalitarian assholes. Marx was not.

If you aren't mentally capable of differentiating between original Marxist communism and 20th century Leninist communism, you shouldn't be talking about it.

I don't see the same level of gross civil liberties being violated by the followers of Locke.

Locke didn't leave his works as easily exploitable as Marx did. He flat-out stated that you can overthrow any corrupt government and spoke in general terms about civil liberties. Marx, OTOH, was all about the class war. He wasn't careful with his phrasing, and as such left his works open for people like Lenin to exploit. Lenin would've had a more difficult time twisting Locke's words, since Locke was all about the people rebelling any time someone begins to exploit their power. With Marx, he managed to convince people that a temporary exploitation was neccessary to form a classless society.


Marx was a misguided idealist.

This is because the modern liberals e.g. Mao, Stalin, Pot,

Barring Mao who is debatable (but either way murdered people who didn't agree with him, which is a socially conservative convention), these people are in NO way liberal. Taking away civil rights and controlling the media, forcing people to live their lives according to a specific tradition is the very ANTITHESIS of what it means to be liberal. 20th century "communists" are NOT liberals in the traditional sense! They twisted the words of a liberal philosophy as an excuse to form totalitarian regimes that mirrored the repressive regimes throughout history.

Kennedy, Kerry, unlike the classical liberals do not understand that rights to private property is a civil right and history tells us that when this basic civil right is violated all civil rights are in jeopardy.

I like Kennedy, though he had his faults as do most politicians. Kerry sucks ass.

Ya would think if them Mexicans were being so badly exploited they would stop coming here.

Lesser of two evils. But not all Mexican Americans are illegal, regardless.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

There was never any vast exploitation. Capitalism was not as efficient, nor had as much capital to work, with as it does today. Those who labor voluntarily are not exploited (the pinko commie's favorite word).

I suggest everyone read THE MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS by Burton W. Folsom

So ... Are you denying that people were overworked, had no minimum wage, had no real worker's rights (IOW if they were injured from being overworked, could just be kicked aside), etc.? Thus saying that virtually every modern sociology or humanities textbook is wrong?

BTW, the fact that they consented to the labor is irrelevent when there's no real alternative other than being homeless, and they aren't allowed to strike or protest their treatment. As far as the word "exploited" goes, it's a legitimate word. It wasn't invented by Joseph Stalin, so stop harping on about it.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

The federal government did not do a hell of a lot for the San Francisco quake victims of 1906 or the Galveston hurricane victims of 1900. Some of them whining Katrina victims are still getting free rent.

What exactly is your point? That there were times when the government didn't give a **** about white people either? Therefore, black people should shut up and accept the crappy response with a smile on their face?

 

[hugo]

So ... Are you denying that people were overworked, had no minimum wage, had no real worker's rights (IOW if they were injured from being overworked, could just be kicked aside), etc.? Thus saying that virtually every modern sociology or humanities textbook is wrong?

BTW, the fact that they consented to the labor is irrelevent when there's no real alternative other than being homeless, and they aren't allowed to strike or protest their treatment. As far as the word "exploited" goes, it's a legitimate word. It wasn't invented by Joseph Stalin, so stop harping on about it.

It was a world where goods were much scarcer. Only after capitalism created more goods could better working conditions and higher wages be given. The history of the industrial revolution shows that individuals quite voluntarily leave their farms for factory labor. Two willing parties agree then there is no exploitation. Exploitation exists only where government coercion exists.

Come on, you stated you are an anarchist. Don't you understand this? Less government is better. Stop being a fool. Drop Das Kapital pick up Free To Choose by Milton Friedman. It would be a good start in you re-education. I realize you are a victim of our public school system that teaches myths such as the robber baron scenario as fact.

 

[hugo]

What exactly is your point? That there were times when the government didn't give a **** about white people either? Therefore, black people should shut up and accept the crappy response with a smile on their face?

Everything is race with you, ain't it? The point is Galveston and San Francisco managed to rebuild with very minimal federal assistance. This was before modern liberalism turned a nation of pioneers into a bunch of dependent pansies.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

It was a world where goods were much scarcer. Only after capitalism created more goods could better working conditions and higher wages be given. The history of the industrial revolution shows that individuals quite voluntarily leave their farms for factory labor. Two willing parties agree then there is no exploitation. Exploitation exists only where government coercion exists.

Guy ... The fact that the government controlled all goods and services to the point that your choices were either to work or die of hunger MAKES it coercion.

"Hi, either work for me until you break your back and starve, or don't work for me and just starve. BTW, I'm not being coercive at all"


If you're arguing that the economy demanded the exploitation ... Fine, but it is STILL opression, regardless of the reason. Similarly, the slaves were originally bought for economic reasons rather than racial ones. Doesn't change the fact that blacks were oppressed. Mind you, there were still some rich folks in America back then, at the head of the industries. I really don't see how you can argue that they WEREN'T exploitative. Most major businesses are even today.

Come on, you stated you are an anarchist. Don't you understand this? Less government is better.

Did I ever say otherwise? In general, I'm for free trade with the caveat that there must be enough laws so that vast exploitation and monopolies don't occur. So long as there are some effective safeguards against that sort of thing, I'm for lack of government interference.

Stop being a fool. Drop Das Kapital pick up Free To Choose by Milton Friedman. It would be a good start in you re-education. I realize you are a victim of our public school system that teaches myths such as the robber baron scenario as fact.

All it seems that you've disputed is the reasoning behind the oppression, not that the oppression existed. Which is sort of beside the point. I mean, Hitler thought Germany was being assailed by the Jews and he was effectively a hero out there saving the world. Doesn't change the fact that, regardless of his intentions, he unleashed one of the greatest evils the world's ever known.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Everything is race with you, ain't it?

No, but the topic was brought up under the context of "black people blaming white people for hurricanes." It was introduced into the discussion by Jhony5 as a racial issue.

The point is Galveston and San Francisco managed to rebuild with very minimal federal assistance. This was before modern liberalism turned a nation of pioneers into a bunch of dependent pansies.

I'd imagine that the fact that they weren't expecting government assistance means they weren't paying taxes for that purpose and were more prepared for a do-it-yourself situation. Honestly, I could see it working either way ... The national government is in charge of these things, or the local government is. Either way, I hold the system to do what it's designed to, and when it fails at that, people can and should speak out against it.

 

[hugo]

Slavery was oppression. Voluntary labor was not oppressed anymore than someone born with no legs is crippled. Let me explain this verrrry sloooowllllee. I reeeealize youe education in free market economics is limited. The pie was only so big. PIECES OF THE PIE COULD ONLY BE A CERTAIN SIZE. AS TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVED AND LABOR BECAME MORE EFFICIENT THE PIE GREW BIGGER. NOW THE LABORER COULD HAVE A BIGGER PIECE.

Maybe this will help. Would you favor a minimum wage increase to $200 an hour?

 

[hugo]

No, but the topic was brought up under the context of "black people blaming white people for hurricanes." It was introduced into the discussion by Jhony5 as a racial issue.





I'd imagine that the fact that they weren't expecting government assistance means they weren't paying taxes for that purpose and were more prepared for a do-it-yourself situation. Honestly, I could see it working either way ... The national government is in charge of these things, or the local government is. Either way, I hold the system to do what it's designed to, and when it fails at that, people can and should speak out against it.

People should realize that government is inefficient by nature and vote to keep as much of their money away from government as possible.