Ben Shapiro speaking at Cal

Ben Shapiro would vote to preserve and keep institutional racism just like the racist white men on this board.

That's why they are defending him.
 
Micawber said:
Not when comparing apples to apples it doesn't. It's about in the middle. Anyway, it's one thing for a conservative to laud and applaud the freedom of capitalism, but it's another for one to lie about the causes of poverty. Poverty is a necessary consequence of freedom. Democratic policies tend to ameliorate what Republican policies necessarily cause. Why you ask? Because freedom of individuals making decisions including what they will do, how capital will be utilized, who will be hired, how many people will be hired, what color they will be, necessarily isolates winners from losers. So as a NECESSARY and INEVITABLE consequence of the freedoms we enjoy, there will NECESSARILY be a percentage of humans standing out in the cold holding their johnsons instead of working. They will do dumb things too, and make dumb choices like crime and drugs. But it ALL comes back to the society we have chosen, one largely based upon freedom of industry and competition. Show me competition for resources and I'll show you cheating.

So fuck them, their mothers and the collective horses they rode in on when they blame us for trying to reduce the suffering they cause, and they misassign us as the cause. FUCK THEM and THAT!
Click to expand...

This is one way to avoid responsibility for the results of policies you support
 
Micawber said:
Right. It doesn't change oranges to apples now, does it. Dude, there is NOTHING under the sun that escapes my gaze. You give me an article, I'll read it and apprehend every nuance and fact once through.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious. Congrats on the ability to read?
 
Micawber said:
Your own source. It is only the highest when California itself adjusted it up by adding in the cost of mansions and crsytal champagne. Poor people don't buy mansions or VIP party. Why aren't the other states providing a complete picture?
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say that . What it means is that the cost of living is higher therefore a dollar doesn't go as far as it would in Kansas, e.g.
But I think you know that. At least I'd hope you do. Probably better to be dishonest than stupid.
What cawacko brings home is that income disparity is worse in CA , same as he's done in many other threads and posts of his .
 
Last edited:
CA is the 6th largest economy in the world.

It piss's the racist right off. Remember when their mantra was "it's the economy stupid".........well our economy is booming.

Those "liberal racist progressives" are doing something right......LOL
 
cawacko said:
This is one way to avoid responsibility for the results of policies you support
Click to expand...

Look at it like layers of an onion within a temporal framework. The central core is the state of nature. Your system is a closer to the core than mine. Feel free to maintain without proof that the more outer layer adds greater injustice than that which exists with your ideal, but it is insulting to the extreme to say helping people is intended to increase pain.

Can you show me a free market system without losers and poverty? I will readily admit that a capitalist system has created more wealth than any system known to mankind, (buoyed by an industrial revolution). I will even forego the arguments involving levels of government intervention that concomitantly witness the wealth explosion.

But you can't admit that free people making enlightened self interested private choices in enterprise and occupation results in losers. A system that necessarily creates losers can by definition be improved upon. Wealth transfers to ameliorate suffering of life's materially poorer makes good economics in a marginal utility sense. That extra 10K to a multimillionaire is not as valuable as the first 10K to a poor family. Read, I don't know, I believe Jeremy Bentham.

The argument is not whether or not, it's how much is the right amount. I'm not pro graft, waste fraud or abuse. But I am loathe to entertain arguments that undercut the basis for charitable public policy and finance being for betterment of welfare and society.

If you are of the stripe that says, I don't care, what's mine is mine, law of the jungle, I can't argue against that. I think it's hateful and animalistic, but it logically defensible to value freedom to the total exclusion of all else. But government using wealth transfers from its bag of tricks trying to alleviate suffering caused by poverty which has an empirical fact always existed with capitalism, (and it can't be gainsaid is currently at levels not seen since the great depression) is good. It's not the cause of poverty and it's galling to hear the social darwinists blame the left for what they are really absolutely fine with.
 
cawacko said:
Not sure if serious. Congrats on the ability to read?
Click to expand...

Part serious. I know this is not a one sided argument. It's annoying to hear people treat it like it is, call people who support public help for the poor the cause of injustice, and have to suffer the misrepresentation by omission of the words in their own sources.

You were happy to publish for the uninitiated that California's poverty was the worst, when in point of fact that proof was based upon statistical evidence unused by the federal government official statistical methods or that of any other state. You were quite happy to overlook your own source's statement that when apples were compared to apples, California was just south of smack dap in the big middle. Why?
 
Micawber said:
Look at it like layers of an onion within a temporal framework. The central core is the state of nature. Your system is a closer to the core than mine. Feel free to maintain without proof that the more outer layer adds greater injustice than that which exists with your ideal, but it is insulting to the extreme to say helping people is intended to increase pain.

Can you show me a free market system without losers and poverty? I will readily admit that a capitalist system has created more wealth than any system known to mankind, (buoyed by an industrial revolution). I will even forego the arguments involving levels of government intervention that concomitantly witness the wealth explosion.

But you can't admit that free people making enlightened self interested private choices in enterprise and occupation results in losers. A system that necessarily creates losers can by definition be improved upon. Wealth transfers to ameliorate suffering of life's materially poorer makes good economics in a marginal utility sense. That extra 10K to a multimillionaire is not as valuable as the first 10K to a poor family. Read, I don't know, I believe Jeremy Bentham.

The argument is not whether or not, it's how much is the right amount. I'm not pro graft, waste fraud or abuse. But I am loathe to entertain arguments that undercut the basis for charitable public policy and finance being for betterment of welfare and society.

If you are of the stripe that says, I don't care, what's mine is mine, law of the jungle, I can't argue against that. I think it's hateful and animalistic, but it logically defensible to value freedom to the total exclusion of all else. But government using wealth transfers from its bag of tricks trying to alleviate suffering caused by poverty which has an empirical fact always existed with capitalism, (and it can't be gainsaid is currently at levels not seen since the great depression) is good. It's not the cause of poverty and it's galling to hear the social darwinists blame the left for what they are really absolutely fine with.
Click to expand...

Most people don't want to see people starving and suffering on our streets. I walk past large numbers of homeless each day and it sucks to see. Reasonable and well intentioned people can debate and disagree over what levels the gov't should be involved in helping and the results (or the non results) of the attempt to help needy people.

Calling others evil feels good I'm sure but ultimately doesn't do a whole to advance the cause in this case of people who need help.
 
Micawber said:
Part serious. I know this is not a one sided argument. It's annoying to hear people treat it like it is, call people who support public help for the poor the cause of injustice, and have to suffer the misrepresentation by omission of the words in their own sources.

You were happy to publish for the uninitiated that California's poverty was the worst, when in point of fact that proof was based upon statistical evidence unused by the federal government official statistical methods or that of any other state. You were quite happy to overlook your own source's statement that when apples were compared to apples, California was just south of smack dap in the big middle. Why?
Click to expand...

Like I said it was a measure that was actually created by progressive groups that take into account cost of living. In the real world you can't ignore cost of living so it is a more accurate and reflective measure of true poverty.
 
cawacko said:
Most people don't want to see people starving and suffering on our streets. I walk past large numbers of homeless each day and it sucks to see. Reasonable and well intentioned people can debate and disagree over what levels the gov't should be involved in helping and the results (or the non results) of the attempt to help needy people.

Calling others evil feels good I'm sure but ultimately doesn't do a whole to advance the cause in this case of people who need help.
Click to expand...

I like this post.
 
cawacko said:
Like I said it was a measure that was actually created by progressive groups that take into account cost of living. In the real world you can't ignore cost of living so it is a more accurate and reflective measure of true poverty.
Click to expand...

My spidy sense tells me California "progressives" want to raise the levels of poverty to get more money to fight that poverty. That is an obvious motivation to challenge whatever basket of goods the feds are using in their data that omits housing.
 
Micawber said:
My spidy sense tells me California "progressives" want to raise the levels of poverty to get more money to fight that poverty. That is an obvious motivation to challenge whatever basket of goods the feds are using in their data that omits housing.
Click to expand...

It was created on a national level and isn't used by the gov't for funding but it gives a more in depth and accurate reality of poverty
 
cawacko said:
Progressive California has the highest poverty rate in the country. That's compassionate to you?
Click to expand...

9 out of the 10 poorest states in the nation are all republican .. that on top of 97% of the poorest counties in the nation are all republican led and controlled. Is that what you'd call 'compassion?'

Given that you say nothing about those truths, I'd say it's safe to say that you aren't really concerned about poverty. compassion, or poor people as much as you are trying to score political points.

I'm guessing that even those in poverty would rather live in California than Mississippi.
 
cawacko said:
It was created on a national level and isn't used by the gov't for funding but it gives a more in depth and accurate reality of poverty
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that. While the data was harvested from the US census bureau, the analyst was from a California bureau. What is clear is that this supplemental methodology is not applied to any other state in that article. I can't imagine the US Govts motivation to make a California specific metric. It is easy, as I said, why Cali might want one, to open the spigot wider.
 
blackascoal said:
9 out of the 10 poorest states in the nation are all republican .. that on top of 97% of the poorest counties in the nation are all republican led and controlled. Is that what you'd call 'compassion?'

Given that you say nothing about those truths, I'd say it's safe to say that you aren't really concerned about poverty. compassion, or poor people as much as you are trying to score political points.

I'm guessing that even those in poverty would rather live in California than Mississippi.
Click to expand...

When one calls certain economic policies evil then says the policies which contribute to the highest poverty rate compassionate how would you react?
 
blackascoal said:
9 out of the 10 poorest states in the nation are all republican .. that on top of 97% of the poorest counties in the nation are all republican led and controlled. Is that what you'd call 'compassion?'

Given that you say nothing about those truths, I'd say it's safe to say that you aren't really concerned about poverty. compassion, or poor people as much as you are trying to score political points.

I'm guessing that even those in poverty would rather live in California than Mississippi.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any appreciable percentage of the poor actually move to California when the relatively altruistic basket of public services is a substantial factor in the decision. Probably more likely the mild weather. Does Peoria still criminalize vagrancy and provide free one way tickets to San Jose?:rolleyes:
 
Micawber said:
I'm not too sure about that. While the data was harvested from the US census bureau, the analyst was from a California bureau. What is clear is that this supplemental methodology is not applied to any other state in that article. I can't imagine the US Govts motivation to make a California specific metric. It is easy, as I said, why Cali might want one, to open the spigot wider.
Click to expand...

There's a rating for every state under this methodology. This was a California paper talking about California so it's not surprising they aren't referencing other states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top