This is either a foolish statement or a lie. The United States was never a 'purely capitalistic society'. How about we make a wager, malanthrop? If you can point to a period in time when the United States was purely capitalistic, I will stay away from Hatrack for one month. If you can't, you will.
It's a nice thought, though of course you've got ample weasel room in the subjective term 'pure capitalism'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
This is either a foolish statement or a lie. The United States was never a 'purely capitalistic society'. How about we make a wager, malanthrop? If you can point to a period in time when the United States was purely capitalistic, I will stay away from Hatrack for one month. If you can't, you will.
It's a nice thought, though of course you've got ample weasel room in the subjective term 'pure capitalism'.
I think the "weasel room" is on your side. It was awfully capitalistic when our government was trading beads for land with people who didn't comprehend the concept of land ownership.
It was certainly,... capitalistic prior to the formation of beurocratic institutions that created "regulations" dictating what people can or can't sell. It was most definitely purely capitalistic before it was illegal for me to cut down a tree without a permit and the EPA was formed and considering banning lead bullets.
Of course, we had laws. You leapt on the "purely" part as an absolute....very good. Absolutes can always be disproved...you must've been on the high school debate team. In a "purely capitalistic" society you could sell anything, including your wife's eyes. If this is your intention.....I'll deviate.
We were purely capitalistic the moment after the signing of the constitution. Ever since, politicians have undermined that pure freedom to enhance their election chances with promises and/or financial contributions.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the "weasel room" is on your side. It was awfully capitalistic when our government was trading beads for land with people who didn't comprehend the concept of land ownership.
We weren't the United States then. Pretty basic history there.
quote: It was certainly,... capitalistic prior to the formation of beurocratic institutions that created "regulations" dictating what people can or can't sell. It was most definitely purely capitalistic before it was illegal for me to cut down a tree without a permit and the EPA was formed and considering banning lead bullets.
Ahh, so your answer is 'never' then. Because those institutions have always existed, in some degree and shape, in the United States. You have a pretty simple job to prove your point: find one time when they didn't.
quote: Of course, we had laws. You leapt on the "purely" part as an absolute....very good. Absolutes can always be disproved...you must've been on the high school debate team. In a "purely capitalistic" society you could sell anything, including your wife's eyes. If this is your intention.....I'll deviate.
Not so much high school debate as an expectation that you'll stand by the words you actually use. Well, not you specifically, malanthrop, since you've long since burned through any such expectation, but an expectation of people in general. What, am I supposed to apologize for seizing on an egregiously silly statement you made, pointing out - along with others - just how foolish it was?
quote:We were purely capitalistic the moment after the signing of the constitution. Ever since, politicians have undermined that pure freedom to enhance their election chances with promises and/or financial contributions.
No, this is either a foolish statement or a lie as well. Would you care to make the same wager you of course refused before, malanthrop?
ETA: Just to lay it completely on the line the depths of your wrongness, malanthrop:
quote: Excise: A tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods within a country
Now, are you going to man up and say, "Yeah, I was wrong," or will you typically slink out of this conversation and pretend nothing happened, or change the subject completely?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop, you can say things without making absurd, extreme statements.
Like, you could say that America had a much less regulated economy (more capitalistic, to borrow your terminology) the further back in our history you go. That's still general, but it's got the added perk of being factual.
You could argue that things were better when we were more capitalistic. That the addition of lots of government oversight agencies and regs has just added a lot of costly bureaucracy and accomplished very little. This isn't a fact, precisely, but it's a valid stance to take (in many cases, it's one I agree with) and when people disagreed you could then argue it from there.
But these bizarre blanket statements don't successfully get your point across. Just in case that matters to you...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
So in other words, nothing.
I love it. Just a perfect snapshot of mal's dogged determination to be irrelevant.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like, you could say that America had a much less regulated economy (more capitalistic, to borrow your terminology) the further back in our history you go. That's still general, but it's got the added perk of being factual.
No, no, not factual. The economy has always had ups and downs in regulations -- there is no clear narrative of generally increasing regulation. Prior to the gilded age, economic regulation (especially of trade) was extremely commonplace. Even the gilded age itself was characterized by economic muddling we would not countenance today -- the federal government using the military to force private citizens to keep working for a particular company, price ceilings on transporting and storing grain, you get the idea. The narrative of steadily increasing economic regulation is fantasy at best. It doesn't even apply very well to the bogeyman that most people who worship that idol conjure up: the income tax.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? That's incredibly interesting to me! I'm aware of certain instances of exceptions, but I had always thought that aside from those the general trend as time went on was always more regulation.
I don't exactly expect you to give me a timeline or anything, but I am very curious about this. Any suggestions of where I could start? Online sources would be great, of course, but if the best ones are paper I can seek them out instead.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem with the narrative is that the only government intervention that counts is intervention that RESTRAINS business from acting. But for the period between 1850 and say, 1910 (I can't remember the exact dates of the labor reform laws of the early 1900s, but the 30s were a big decade for labor), government was heavily involved in the economy, only as a force to restrain LABOR from having a voice in the system. The government brutally put down labor protests, and I mean brutally, and like fugu said, used the army to force laborers back to work after the mess was cleaned up. The government was a national strike breaking force for decades. You know what the first major uses of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were? They weren't to bust the trusts, they were to attack unions for restricting trade between businesses, effectively union busting.
Besides, during the 19th century, probably the single biggest issue at any given time was the tariff. Especially in the early 19th century, people were so up in arms over tariffs that there was a secession scare during Jackson's term over the Tariff of Abominations that led to the Nullification Crisis. And the tariff was inherently the government fiddling with trade and the economic system, often for purely local reasons. A senator from the south might want to make it harder for foreign cotton, so he'd suggest a tariff, but the good senator from Massachusetts wants that cotton for the local textile manufacturers so they can send out finished goods overseas, lest there be a trade war that hurts his state's manufactures. Lots of state versus state imbroglios, but tariffs were always changing, always a hot button issue, and always there.
Anyone who says that government interference didn't start until regulations after the Gilded Age is either woefully ignorant, or lying to advance a narrative. However, given the narrative pushed by many about the history of government interference, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was just ignorance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
(edit: and note that the first book includes numerous examples of the government restraining business from acting, frequently through very destructive price controls -- which are one of the very worst kinds of regulation, and thankfully one we've mostly moved away from)
Looking at recent history, there's been massive deregulation since the middle of the 20th century (note: the timeline is very different depending on the area being looked at; that's one thing that makes the story more complex).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Is it because these are hot-button issues for Democrats and not Republicans? Sounds like a perfect cross-party tactic to swipe away at some independent voters, but they're sticking to character assassination instead of substantive policy issues.
It's interesting. The way I see it, there are the following changes coming up:
quote:Today, non-Hispanic whites make up about 68% of the population. This is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today African Americans make up 12% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15% of the population. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population today and they are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today.
So you gotta figure, a strategy that relies upon playing to a xenophobic religious white base is going to ride down hard demographically. Maybe not in the short term, but long term it seems like a doomed strategy.
It would be natural for the Republicans to reach out to blacks and Hispanics who are statistically more religious than non-hispanic whites. Based on things like the exit polls for Prop 8, they could build a pretty grand coalition among Hispanics, Blacks, and religious whites to bolster that section of their agenda. (Asians are probably a lost cause) At least that way, they could make some headway into groups that are actually growing.
But the longer they go with the Tea Party thing (to scare off blacks), Arizona immigration (to scare off Hispanics), ground zero mosques and the like, the more they'll find themselves shut out of the growing groups. (And thats not even factoring in the long-term trend towards less religion by percentage)
In Canada, our conservatives have whipped their MPs hard to avoid saying too overtly anti-immigrant or religious, although there are the occasional slips. By repressing that and playing up other issues like fiscal policy, they've managed to build surprising inroads into immigrant and non-white demographics.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Only Dems can get away with calling people a traitor to their race for being conservative. Allen West is an Uncle Tom, along with Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby and MLK's niece.
stick with the senate majority leader of a party that calls people a traitor to their race, for having a different opinion.
How dare a minority be a conservative. When they are, even MLK's niece, they sold out.....right?
Forget which party freed the slaves? Of course, the racist dems were all about government benefits.......the projects are just a different form of segregation.
What political party made up the bulk of the KKK? Who opposed the civil rights act? Which party had a speaker of the house that was a "Grand Wizard" of the KKK?
The Dems love minorities, so long as they tow the line and stay in their place. SEIU will beat down a hard working conservative and democrat senators will attack any conservative supreme court nominee....if they happen to be black.
Stay in your place....good little negro....don't deviate. Ask Harry Reid what he thinks about conservative hispanics.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tea party has nothing to do with race. The only blacks that are being "scared off" are the ones listening to liberal media.
And, look, completely sidestepping the whole purely capitalist society discussion. It's moments like these that make me think malanthrop must be a straight-up troll, because it's very difficult for me to imagine someone being so steadfastly afraid of admitting being wrong as malanthrop.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a $100k reward for video proof of the racist remarks and spitting claimed, when the health care bill passed. Funny,...media cameras were in the procession but the same media outlets called the protesters racist.
This one's for you: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” Ayn Rand
Stop stereotyping,....minority conservatives do exist. Blacks do have the ability to hold different opinions. Check out the columnists at WND.com
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, malanthrop, want to wrap up that 'America was a purely capitalist society' discussion we were having? Or are you too spineless to man up even on the Internet?
That's a rhetorical question, it's well known around here you are, in fact, a huge coward when it comes to substantiating your rhetoric, even among the folks who come close to agreeing with you, but it's fun highlighting it sometimes whenever you get on one of your kicks.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's moments like these that make me think malanthrop must be a straight-up troll, because it's very difficult for me to imagine someone being so steadfastly afraid of admitting being wrong as malanthrop.
I mean, this forum alone has Ron Lambert. Some people are just indefatigably unresponsive to correction that way.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a troll. I understand the perception, I've been absent for a couple months. I spent the last two months in southern Afghanistan. The Obama supporters living in the projects near my house, live like kings compared to what I've seen. I'll gladly trade, one for one, the "social justice" and "liberation theology" followers for the millions who outnumber them in the world....wanting to be American citizens.
Our current situation is as disfunctional as a marriage with a cheating spouse, with the offended holding it over the offender's head. Slavery was wrong. We should've done the right thing and sent them all back to Africa after slavery was banned. We're in a marriage where the disgruntled spouse can't forgive.
Al Sharpton gave a rally today as well. He claimed justice hasn't been served since black unemployment rates are twice those of whites. Of course, he didn't mention their high school graduation rates are less than half those of whites. Slavery was the biggest mistake this nation ever made,...we're going to pay for it for a long, long time.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our current situation is as disfunctional as a marriage with a cheating spouse, with the offended holding it over the offender's head. Slavery was wrong. We should've done the right thing and sent them all back to Africa after slavery was banned.
Wow. Shipping a bunch of blacks back off to a continent they have never been to making them refugees right after they have been freed. Because it is the "right thing to do".
Well to make sure that we don't have to deal with them in the future.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I was taken from my home land, I would consider the right thing to do....send me back. The other option is reconciliation. If a husband cheats on his wife, they can either work it out or split up. Of course, being sent back isn't an option, there's a 10 to 1 discrepancy of people there who want to trade places with the complainers here.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
(Post edited by Janitor Blade. That was too far Mal.)
quote:If I was taken from my home land, I would consider the right thing to do....send me back.
None of the slaves who were freed by the Civil War and the subsequent acts of law were taken from homelands in Africa.
quote:I don't have anything against minorities...edited by Janitor Blade
I would love to hear how you reconcile the desire to ship a population en masse out of the country with not having anything against that population. But only after you man up and answer Rakeesh.
posted
Please, too many tangents going on...what is Rakeesh's question, so I can "man up".
I don't want to ship "en masse" anyone. I would trade the individual complainer for the dozens in the world who are waiting in line to take their place.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question being about American pure capitalism. You know, the very matter you were discussing immediately before you switched the subject? That question.
As for not wanting to ship anyone, you just said the right thing to do would be to ship slaves 'back' to Africa. Tom pointed out they didn't come from Africa. That was within the past forty minutes. Are you posting drunk, high, or simply with an absence of integrity?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The post about capitalism was yesterday for me...I'm a bit drunk though.
I didn't suggest it's the right thing to do now,...shipping blacks back to Africa. They might've appreciated it at the time. Slaves did come from Africa, along with the rest of us. Anyone who complains, should be given a free ticket, there are hundreds willing to take their place.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They never lived in Africa but they never accepted the place they were born as a home land..... this is a problem.
Current African Americans are lottery winners. There are millions of real Africans willing to trade places with them. Africans, like my Jamaican neighbors, that hold nothing but disgust for the average "African American". Their ancestors, like most Americans, paid a high price for their current opportunity. Unfortunately, the majority of African Americans follow a party that tells them they don't have equal opportunity. When one succeeds and figures it out on his own, he's a traitor to his race.
Conservative minorities are a discredit to their race.....according to the Democratic party.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:They never lived in Africa but they never accepted the place they were born as a home land...
Perhaps this is because, y'know, they weren't actually allowed to own property or keep their own children? And we certainly didn't live up to any promises of land, either.
quote:Current African Americans are lottery winners.
This is a common meme. So would you say that you, by whining about them without suffering even their slight disadvantages, are even more ungrateful?
------------
Before you answer that, though, please do answer Rakeesh.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Mal, watch "Kill the Messenger" by Chris Rock, sure its standup comedy but on the other hand it does the job in explaining how pigheadedly wrong you are.
For example where Chris Rock lives in New Jearsy, he lives there next to Eddie Murphy and a few other famous black actors or comedians, all the black people on his street are famous and rich.
What does his white neighbour do for a living? He's a dentist!
IP: Logged |
posted
I do love my Jamaican neighbors. On the surface and to the dems,...they are black. To me and to themselves, they are Americans. The millions of Africans who can only dream about being a US citizen along with my Jamaican neighbors, realize that there is equal opportunity in America.
If anything, being a minority is a benefit. If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy. Two equal candidates for employment, the minority will be chosen.
We use racial politics for supreme court nominations. First and foremost,....are there enough women, blacks, hispanics, etc on the court. Actual qualifications are secondary.
In a true quota system, based upon population, minorities are over represented on the supreme court.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A white guy who works for the government for a company that won it's contract for being, "Minority female owned".
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A percentage of contracts are reserved for small business, minority, female, etc. http://www.ezfts.com/aboutus.php Perhaps you think it's wrong for the minority owned business to hire a white guy?
posted
No, not at all. I was merely pointing out the irony. But, of course, you don't actually detect any. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, lookit all the question-answering malanthrop still isn't doing! You realize how tediously transparent you're being, right malanthrop? Your tissue-thin lie that you forgot to answer my question before on the subject of purely capitalist America because it was a previous day's topic and you were drunk wasn't exactly ironclad, but now it's two days later and you still haven't responded.
You don't have Jamaican neighbors, you don't make lots of money, about the only you say about yourself I believe is true is that you post drunk. Can you blame me? You lack even the integrity to admit when you're proven wrong about a straightforward question of basic American history.
If you feel I'm being unfair, of course, there's an easy way to correct the matter. Here's a hint: it's not to talk about minorities or slavery or Jamaican neighbors or anything but purely capitalist America.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who complains, should be given a free ticket, there are hundreds willing to take their place.
You are the one currently complaining, why not give *YOU* a free ticket back to another continent?
As for your "it might have been a good idea to ship the slaves back to Africa" -- even with your "divorce" argument, it's the wronged party that gets most the property, and the one that wrongs them that gets evicted: The black former slaves should have perhaps been given the majority of the Southern states as their own nation, to be admitted in the United States anew if *they* freely chose to do so. And whatever *white* person didn't like it, they could be given a free ticket back to Europe.
Didn't that idea occur to you? That perhaps it should have been the white people that needed to be shipped elsewhere? How come?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've known many Africans who can't stand African Americans. Being an American citizen is the best opportunity afforded to anyone, in the world.
As a child of one married to the other, I'd love to hear you elaborate on this point. Mostly because I doubt you have any idea what you're talking about.
quote:We use racial politics for supreme court nominations. First and foremost,....are there enough women, blacks, hispanics, etc on the court. Actual qualifications are secondary.
Elaborate please.
It's not like there's a shortage of competent jurists to fill the bench. Also, why is it a bad thing that our Supreme Court attempts to reflect a cross section of the American population?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy.
That bothers me. Having taken the ASVAB myself, and having tied you as a worst case scenario, I can definitively say that even a perfect score on that test entitles you to nothing more than the ability to choose your military vocation without it being chosen for you.
There is no comparison between being able to do simple Algebra and knowing what "Thursday" means and being able to succeed academically at an even moderately challenging college. Those moderately challenging colleges know that better than I do, which is why they don't ask for ASVAB scores.
It's important to understand your limitations so you don't project biases within the framework of experience and intelligence you don't necessarily have. I've been there. I got better.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought there was a great comment on having multiple woman in a row being appointed though I don't remember who made it. People are in an uproar over the idea of 2 women in a row and maybe even 3 in the future. So, where is the uproar over the past 100 something of men without interruption. If we are going to be upset over, the 100 something white men in a row seems a lot more of a "streak" than 2 woman in a row.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy.
That bothers me. Having taken the ASVAB myself, and having tied you as a worst case scenario, I can definitively say that even a perfect score on that test entitles you to nothing more than the ability to choose your military vocation without it being chosen for you.
There is no comparison between being able to do simple Algebra and knowing what "Thursday" means and being able to succeed academically at an even moderately challenging college. Those moderately challenging colleges know that better than I do, which is why they don't ask for ASVAB scores.
It's important to understand your limitations so you don't project biases within the framework of experience and intelligence you don't necessarily have. I've been there. I got better.
I don't understand how ASVAB scores could get you into Harvard either. I read that and scratched my head for a second... Perhaps he meant ACT scores?
I scored very well on my ASVABS and all it got me was a score of recruiters calling me every day. When they told me they had jobs for everyone I usually answered back with one of two answers:
"WOW really? Because I've always wanted to be a cockroach farmer! You have jobs for that right!?!?!?"
or
"Well hey you have a nice phone voice, maybe we could get some lunch sometime then go out to a movie. I bet you are cute!"
I found if I used one of those two statements the phone calls would stop for a few months.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: This thread is so lame. You should all be talking about Super Metroid.
You know how they say that games have 'startling revelations?' Yeah, i don't hardly ever find them startling. rarely ever, like only four or five times in my life, do I get startled by a revelation, be they in film, books, games, tv shows, etc.
Super Metroid gave me the one single largest Startling Revelation I've ever experienced. I was like OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT OH MY GOD I'M DYING WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..... what .... OH. OH WOW.
posted
Ir's part of a cutscene they released and it's a really reall bad cutscene thatrs being raged over on a zillion message boards.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
