Tiger Woods feels the hate of conservative slave states for him

cawacko said:
Capitalism is the economic system that has created more wealth and brought more people out of poverty in the world than any other economic system. I'm proud to call myself a capitalist. I'm a capitalist first and member of a political party second. I'm a Republican because of the two parties they are closest to what I believe. That doesn't define me though as a few of y'all seem to define yourself in life by your political party.

I still completely disagree that one's commitment to diversity is based on how they vote. Again, that says what you actually do in life means nothing. It's all about the box you check every two or four years when voting?

If we need to list what we all do in the real world to show diversity let's do it. Rana liked your post yet moved to a 95% white neighborhood. That's some great diversity there. But she gets a pass because she's a liberal even if she doesn't do shit for anyone else.

I do what I can to work for change in the Republican Party. But i realize i'm still evil and a racist. Fuck you guys. And fuck you Rana.
Click to expand...

:0) Your sensitivity to the subject is showing.

Your lack of commitment to diversity is demonstrated by how you vote. As you've said, you care about money first and foremost, not diversity.

Rana is free to live wherever she wants, and she doesn't need a pass to do that any more than you do. If she's liberal .. and she is .. what makes you claim that she doesn't do anything for anybody else? She's doing it with her vote .. something that you aren't. She's doing it with her words .. something that you aren't. I doubt that she's looking for a pass .. but she does have my respect, admiration, and appreciation for who she is, how she votes, and how she conducts her life.

Whatever you're doing within the Republican Party isn't working brother. They've only gotten worse as they openly and gleefully elect racists to run this nation into the ground.

Yes, as long as you vote for the all-white party you will be considered a racist .. and trying to drag liberals into the cesspool of racists that you swim in won't change that.

You could always say that you're just doing it for the money. :0)
 
blackascoal said:
:0) Your sensitivity to the subject is showing.

Your lack of commitment to diversity is demonstrated by how you vote. As you've said, you care about money first and foremost, not diversity.

Rana is free to live wherever she wants, and she doesn't need a pass to do that any more than you do. If she's liberal .. and she is .. what makes you claim that she doesn't do anything for anybody else? She's doing it with her vote .. something that you aren't. She's doing it with her words .. something that you aren't. I doubt that she's looking for a pass .. but she does have my respect, admiration, and appreciation for who she is, how she votes, and how she conducts her life.

Whatever you're doing within the Republican Party isn't working brother. They've only gotten worse as they openly and gleefully elect racists to run this nation into the ground.

Yes, as long as you vote for the all-white party you will be considered a racist .. and trying to drag liberals into the cesspool of racists that you swim in won't change that.

You could always say that you're just doing it for the money. :0)
Click to expand...

I've voted for the last four Democratic Mayors of SF. So am I progressive locally and racist nationally?
 
cawacko said:
I've voted for the last four Democratic Mayors of SF. So am I progressive locally and racist nationally?
Click to expand...

I've never claimed that you are racist at all. But I also would not call you a progressive.

Seems a bit confused.

Does that make you one of the hypocritical liberals that you talk about?
 
blackascoal said:
I've never claimed that you are racist at all. But I also would not call you a progressive.

Seems a bit confused.

Does that make you one of the hypocritical liberals that you talk about?
Click to expand...
If we're talking about the same thing I don't call liberals hypocrites if they vote Republican.

But if we are judged based on how we vote doesn't voting for four democratic mayors make me a democrat or liberal locally?
 
cawacko said:
If we're talking about the same thing I don't call liberals hypocrites if they vote Republican.

But if we are judged based on how we vote doesn't voting for four democratic mayors make me a democrat or liberal locally?
Click to expand...

You call liberals hypocrites if they vote for what would be their natural inclination .. to vote for democrats. How confusing is that?

How is it that you vote for democrats locally .. then come here and attack liberals if you're voting with them locally?

Confusing to say the least.
 
blackascoal said:
You call liberals hypocrites if they vote for what would be their natural inclination .. to vote for democrats. How confusing is that?

How is it that you vote for democrats locally .. then come here and attack liberals if you're voting with them locally?

Confusing to say the least.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, I see what you are saying. Good point. I vote for the person who I think is the most 'market friendly' of the choices I have. Not voting for Mayor is an option and that might make me more consistent in my beliefs whoever I usually vote in each election. So I will comment that those are the only choices I have.
 
cawacko said:
Ahhhhh, I see what you are saying. Good point. I vote for the person who I think is the most 'market friendly' of the choices I have. Not voting for Mayor is an option and that might make me more consistent in my beliefs whoever I usually vote in each election. So I will comment that those are the only choices I have.
Click to expand...

Hopefully these conversations with your brother will lead you to a bit of soul-searching. :0)

If for 'market friendly' reasons you find yourself supporting republicans, speak to that you within that makes you vote with liberals locally before you do.

Then, at the very least, speak forcefully against the hate and lack of diversity within the Republican Party if you must vote for them.

Unless YOU separate yourself from the cesspool, nobody else will.
 
blackascoal said:
Hopefully these conversations with your brother will lead you to a bit of soul-searching. :0)

If for 'market friendly' reasons you find yourself supporting republicans, speak to that you within that makes you vote with liberals locally before you do.

Then, at the very least, speak forcefully against the hate and lack of diversity within the Republican Party if you must vote for them.

Unless YOU separate yourself from the cesspool, nobody else will.
Click to expand...

I try and vote in every election. If Democrats are my only option on the ballot i'm still going to vote. But just as I can criticize Republicans I vote for I can criticize Democrats I vote for.
 
I wish to briefly push back on the notion that Republicans claim ownership to capitalism. The economic theories that demonstrate the advantages of capitalism over planned economies make assumptions such as transparency, access to information, prudence and rational decision making. Further, they do not assume an extant condition of economic inequality.

Therefore democrats stake a superior claim to implementing policies that attempt to create conditions which capitalism in it's truest sense presuppose, whereas Republicans stake a superior claim solely to inhibiting anything that would upset the retention and continued acquisition of wealth by the monied classes.

So, that's my bit on rejecting the premise. Until you show me a law by Democrats entitled "confiscation of wealth" what I am saying is both theoretically and rmpirically true. Republicans do not stand on superior intellectual footing respecting capitalism. Education, market transparency, lack of corruption, and access are fundamental to its proper function.
 
Micawber said:
I wish to briefly push back on the notion that Republicans claim ownership to capitalism. The economic theories that demonstrate the advantages of capitalism over planned economies make assumptions such as transparency, access to information, prudence and rational decision making. Further, they do not assume an extant condition of economic inequality.

Therefore democrats stake a superior claim to implementing policies that attempt to create conditions which capitalism in it's truest sense presuppose, whereas Republicans stake a superior claim solely to inhibiting anything that would upset the retention and continued acquisition of wealth by the monied classes.

So, that's my bit on rejecting the premise. Until you show me a law by Democrats entitled "confiscation of wealth" what I am saying is both theoretically and rmpirically true. Republicans do not stand on superior intellectual footing respecting capitalism. Education, market transparency, lack of corruption, and access are fundamental to its proper function.
Click to expand...

you think calling capitalism a zero sum game and racist is standing up for it?

I mean there are Republicans who practice/support crony capitalism so i will never speak of Republicans as some exalted and pure defenders of capitalism but on the whole compared to Democrats they are more supportive.
 
cawacko said:
I try and vote in every election. If Democrats are my only option on the ballot i'm still going to vote. But just as I can criticize Republicans I vote for I can criticize Democrats I vote for.
Click to expand...

Cool .. but it's also confusing why you vote for republicans at all if 'market friendly' is the impetus.

Markets and the economy fare much better under democrats.

Forbes: Trump Is Right About One Thing: 'The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats'

It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...does-better-under-the-democrats/#738460236786

Dump those worthless racist ineffectual bastards. You don't belong with them .. you're better than that.
 
cawacko said:
Cue Desh stating I'm not a real Democrat.
Click to expand...

I have no stake other than intellectual. I don't care if I am you are or BAC is a hypocrite. The only point of concern is acceptance of the obvious fact that Republicans are a party of overwhelmingly white people who overwhelmingly elect white men to office. While it is also true that parties bring forth a shopping cart full of ideas, interests and positions, no association in politics is more strong than the racial identification that we are speaking about. Then that gets us to intent. On my theory regarding intent, I tend to suppose results obtained are those that are intended, as opposed to chaos and stochastic noise. In the instant case, year upon year of feedback only reinforces my belief as the known result, if not salubrious would have corrected. Yet it persists. Indeed it will persist until such time as attitudes convince white people that they do not have a vested material interest or preferred status conjoined at the hip with their race.
 
cawacko said:
Capitalism is the economic system that has created more wealth and brought more people out of poverty in the world than any other economic system. I'm proud to call myself a capitalist. I'm a capitalist first and member of a political party second. I'm a Republican because of the two parties they are closest to what I believe. That doesn't define me though as a few of y'all seem to define yourself in life by your political party.

I still completely disagree that one's commitment to diversity is based on how they vote. Again, that says what you actually do in life means nothing. It's all about the box you check every two or four years when voting?

If we need to list what we all do in the real world to show diversity let's do it. Rana liked your post yet moved to a 95% white neighborhood. That's some great diversity there. But she gets a pass because she's a liberal even if she doesn't do shit for anyone else.

I do what I can to work for change in the Republican Party. But i realize i'm still evil and a racist. Fuck you guys. And fuck you Rana.
Click to expand...
The Juice is loose! Well he will be in October if he doesn't screw up.

I love your opening sentence. This is why I lovingly call you a free market fundamentalist. You don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. That is to say there is no basis in fact for your comment that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system. As a person who believes in free markets and free enterprise I wish that were true but facts speak otherwise. China may have adopted economic reforms that included market based reforms but don't shit yourself. China is very much a neo-command economy. Though the Chinese government may only own 3% of the corporations in China they are all strategic industries, such as iron & steel and primary metals, banking and telecommunications. Those represent around 30% of China's GDP. In addition all the major corporations in China have members of the politburo on their boards or members of their families and they dictate government policy to those corporations not to mention that Chinese stock exchanges and all land in China is owned by the government. China is not a capitalist nation. Yet in last fifty years China has grown economically at a far greater rate than Capitalist nations including the US. They have lifted hundreds of millions out of dire poverty to the point where the Chinese middle class exceeds the entire population of the US. China still has significant poverty problems as 40% of population lives in dire poverty but nearly 700 million Chinese do not and their national GDP is second only to the US.

Now let's compare that to India which now has a larger population than China. It's GDP is a fraction of China's and nearly 80% of Indians live in dire poverty. India is a Capitalist nation. Now let's look at subsaharan Africa which is the poorest region of the planet. Not one is a socialist nation but they are mired in the meanest poverty because of systemic corruption of capitalist in those nations extracts their resources then invest those profits abroad for their own personal enrichment. Nor should I need to point out how colonial capitalism impoverished vast swaths of the planet and its aftermath to this day is a root cause of poverty around the world.

So the facts simply don't support your belief. As a man of science I have to much respect for facts to diregard them.

You know what does lift the most people out of poverty? It's investment in education and domestic infrastructure and it does not matter if that investment is sourced from Capitalist or Command economic systems. It works for both. Educated people learn skills, knowledge and inovation that produce wealth and no economic system any where of any stripe is sustainable without a highly developed and maintained public infrastructure.

Now on a competitive basis is a well regulated Capitalist system superior to a command economy? I think the facts bear that out. However the notion that capitalism has lifted more people out poverty than any other economic system is not borne out by the facts. Particularly not in the last fifty years. It's simply a mythology fundamentalist cling too.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Juice is loose! Well he will be in October if he doesn't screw up.

I love your opening sentence. This is why I lovingly call you a free market fundamentalist. You don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. That is to say there is no basis in fact for your comment that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system. As a person who believes in free markets and free enterprise I wish that were true but facts speak otherwise. China may have adopted economic reforms that included market based reforms but don't shit yourself. China is very much a neo-command economy. Though the Chinese government may only own 3% of the corporations in China they are all strategic industries, such as iron & steel and primary metals, banking and telecommunications. Those represent around 30% of China's GDP. In addition all the major corporations in China have members of the politburo on their boards or members of their families and they dictate government policy to those corporations not to mention that Chinese stock exchanges and all land in China is owned by the government. China is not a capitalist nation. Yet in last fifty years China has grown economically at a far greater rate than Capitalist nations including the US. They have lifted hundreds of millions out of dire poverty to the point where the Chinese middle class exceeds the entire population of the US. China still has significant poverty problems as 40% of population lives in dire poverty but nearly 700 million Chinese do not and their national GDP is second only to the US.

Now let's compare that to India which now has a larger population than China. It's GDP is a fraction of China's and nearly 80% of Indians live in dire poverty. India is a Capitalist nation. Now let's look at subsaharan Africa which is the poorest region of the planet. Not one is a socialist nation but they are mired in the meanest poverty because of systemic corruption of capitalist in those nations extracts their resources then invest those profits abroad for their own personal enrichment. Nor should I need to point out how colonial capitalism impoverished vast swaths of the planet and its aftermath to this day is a root cause of poverty around the world.

So the facts simply don't support your belief. As a man of science I have to much respect for facts to diregard them.

You know what does lift the most people out of poverty? It's investment in education and domestic infrastructure and it does not matter if that investment is sourced from Capitalist or Command economic systems. It works for both. Educated people learn skills, knowledge and inovation that produce wealth and no economic system any where of any stripe is sustainable without a highly developed and maintained public infrastructure.

Now on a competitive basis is a well regulated Capitalist system superior to a command economy? I think the facts bear that out. However the notion that capitalism has lifted more people out poverty than any other economic system is not borne out by the facts. Particularly not in the last fifty years. It's simply a mythology fundamentalist cling too.
Click to expand...

It's a great day in America!! OJ will be free!

Welcome back and TLDR.

Not a fundamentalist. Just a realist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top