The other day I posted a transcript of Paul Ryan’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. (I forgot to hit [publish] so it was not up that day.) There are key issues in this statement that are a bit “off.” Many of which were brought up by NPR and many other news makers. I want to look at a different part. Instead of looking at his complaints about the “failed stimulus” or claims at the “horrible health care bill,” I want to look at the following passage:
We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that “the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.
Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high. The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/transcript-rep-paul-ryans-response-sotu-our-debt-out-control#ixzz1CHiLfBD9
There are several factors into my issue with these statements. The issue of democracy and democratically elected officials, the issue of corporate interests, the issue of social liability, the issue of opportunity, and the issue of disparities in wealth inequalities.
If our government consists of elected representatives of the population, why would we want to limit them?
Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage Of Capitalism was published in 1917. Unfortunately, it is still relevant. (Yes, I actually went digging through my books for this one.) I really want to go in depth in his analysis, but for brevity, I will just state how he points out that monopoly and financial oligarchy is the ultimate goal of any capitalist entity. This is not just “a Marxist perspective” or an ideological slant – it is simply a statement. How can a capitalist not desire monopoly? Today, we can look at Apple to see this in action. No one else makes the iPhone or the iPad. Apple can charge whatever price they wish for this product… and they do.
Gasoline/Petrol is another great example for the desire for monopoly and price control. Gas prices in America are expected to go up again this year. When this happens, all of the gas prices in a region raise and decline accordingly. Consumers are not left with much of a choice. Some will drive a dozen or so extra miles to save 2 cents per gallon, others will pay whatever premium is charged. The gas producers will raise the prices as high as they can, until people start to decrease purchasing, then they will lower the prices and consumption will resume. The trick is, the lowered price will be higher than the current price. They look or that tipping point where people refuse to pay, and try to aim just below that price. The consumers are left to the will of the producers. (We cannot make our own gasoline… trust me, I’ve tried to figure out a way.)
If we limit government, then who will fill the gap left by the lack of government? The likely answer that Paul Ryan would state is “the people.” This is evident by statements such as: “…“the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.“ I pause with statements such as this, seriously.
The individual liberty of whom? That is what I think needs to be asked. Because, I have always believed that a Democratic government was one that represented the people it governed and acted in their best interest. If this government is limited, it allows some individuals the liberty to do as they wish, irregardless of how other people are effected.
A lot of people like to use the phrase, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Well, this phrase originally comes from John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902), as far as I can tell. The original quote is actually:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Historical accuracy aside, the meaning people usually grant to this statement is in regard to men such as Lenin, Mao, and other “Great Leaders” that, once rising to prominence, were pretty authoritarian rulers. I bring all of this up because of the sentiments that have been rising regarding how bad it is to have a “big government.” The implication of this is that of 1984, or some other Orwellian dystopia – or a Soviet style Authoritarian regime. Not all “big governments” are totalitarian regimes, in reality.
I do concede that government is not as efficient as business. Many Conservatives bring up the inefficiencies of government constantly. Others try to argue that these inefficiencies are hyperbole. I am willing to concede that government is inefficient. The reason government is inefficient is because of oversight and accountability. No government is more efficient than a fascist, authoritarian government. Nazi Germany was probably one of the most efficient governments in human history. Of course, there was zero accountability.
So when Ryan states: “Limited government also means effective government.” This is untrue. Unlimited government is highly effective. A government that owes no explanations to the polity can achieve goals at lightning speed. “When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well.” Germany’s government does much more than the United States government, including providing national health care, providing research and development, initiatives on “green” energy, ensuring high standards of workplace safety and ensuring many more safety nets than the United States. Are we to suppose Germany is ineffective and not performing well? The People’s Republic of China takes on more tasks than it needs to take. They are pretty effective. They seem to be doing things pretty well, too. Has anyone noticed their rate of growth?
“It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.”
It really is not a coincidence, when Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News’ pundits, GOP politicians and Tea Party propaganda repeat the mantra that they should not trust the “big” government ad nauseam.
Ryan states, “… to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity …” is a central role of the US government. I am also going to point out that he stated, “We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.”
Is that so? I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that health care/health coverage could be included in “domestic tranquility and equal opportunity.” This is for several reasons. One is that if the nation is sickly, how does that “ensure domestic tranquility?” Farther, how is it helping equal opportunities when those who have more wealth receive better health care than those with less wealth? And, to that end, what about prenatal care? (If I recall, the Conservatives are the ones so overly concerned with human life prior to birth. Am I wrong about that?) Brain development starts before birth. Adequate health care and nutrition are critical at this juncture. So, I think it is at least reasonable for a person to state that health care and nutritional needs meet the criteria outlined by Republican Paul Ryan.
Farther, he speaks about “upward mobility” in conjunction with “equal opportunity.” How does this work when those who are wealthy receive a better education?
Look at these statistics:
Schoolwide or LEA-wide ELA Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above:
- Acalanes High School: 91.2%
- Richmond High School: 30.5%
Schoolwide Math Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above:
- Acalanes High School: 91.2%
- Richmond High School: 20.4%
Academic Performance Index (API) State Average: 665
- Acalanes High School: 889.0
- Richmond High School: 538.0
For Acalanes High School, (Lafayette) the Estimated median household income in 2009: $117,701
For Richmond High School, Estimated median household income in 2009: $55,558http://www.city-data.com/school/acalanes-high-ca.html
http://www.city-data.com/school/richmond-high-ca.html
Both of these cities are in the same county in California (but different districts).
In recent news, a mother in Ohio is in jail for lying to get her children into a better school district. (ABC News Story: Mother Jailed For Sending Kids To Better School.) This story has so many disheartening and tragic aspects that it is hard to summarize them all. The mother was working on her teaching certification and lied to say her children were living with her father in order to send her children to the school in the district of their grandfather. When she was caught, she was told she had to pay $30,000. She did not pay and was charged with a felony and sent to jail (plus a buttload of probation). Now, she may never become a teacher. And we evidently are back to segregated, Jim Crow schooling and debtor’s prisons.
Are these the equal opportunities that a limited government will give us? Because, I do not see the benefits here. (And, if you read this: Oprah, you really need to give these children some scholarships for something.) This woman just wanted to take advantage of the “upward mobility” that America offers and give her children better opportunities. Unfortunately, the story did not surprise me all that much. I know of similar stories right here in California. (None that resulted in a felony conviction, but some pretty bad instances of targeting students that “did not belong.”)
I got really tired, really fast for some reason… I’m going to edit this tomorrow. When this message is gone, the article will be reviewed and edited (and stamped as edited).
Adam Baum places his trust in Lenin’s understanding of economic philosophy.
Adam Baum places his trust in big government.
Adam Baum says “trust me” when it comes to gasoline production.
And
Adam Baum believes that Apple’s iphone proves that capitalism must lead to monopolies (as per Lenin).
Sorry Adam, in God we trust (or at least half of us do). Btw even though you’d never know it, those words are in large letters on the wall above the speaker’s dais in the House of Representatives.
And as far as the Iphone goes.
A) Most people I know prefer the competing Droid (or the competing version from Microsoft – oops, I alluded to the dread word ‘competition’).
B) Without capitalism there would be no Iphone. There wouldn’t have even been gasoline.
So why don’t you show what a principled Leninist you are and swear off all the fruits of capitalism.
But again, since it’s clear that there is no hope that we and you left-liberals are not going to agree on the issue of big government (even Krugman now agrees) how about you support my call for a peaceful divorce – Or are you still going to come up with lame excuses to continue your side’s parasitism?
Do you purposefully twist words around to diffuse any debate into a rhetorical exploration of semantics?
I ask this because several things were not really what I had stated, nor implied.
I do believe that I simply referred to Lenin’s writing Imperialism, The Highest Stage Of Capitalism. This is not Lenin’s What Is To Be Done or any of his other works. Have you read Imperialism, the HIghest Stage Of Capitalism? What do you find wrong with this examination? Do you disagree with his perspective of monopolistic incentives or cartel control mechanisms? Or do you find fault with his analysis of banking institutions?
I ask, because, I often point that I find major fault with many of Lenin’s conclusions. Nonetheless, it does not destroy any of his analysis on the problems of Capitalism. Similarly, I often point to Anarchist examinations on issues of power. This does not make me an anarchist, nor a supporter of any form of anarchy. (Indeed, Libertarians are actually Anarchists.)
Also, I did not state the following:
I simply used Apple’s pricing policies as an example of a monopoly in a capitalist, consumer economy. I may not have clarified enough (partly because I cannot) but I do know of Apple Inc.’s procedures for pricing policies and attitudes towards competition. Maybe I should have used the iPad as an exclusive example, as there is no other iPad, and other competitor’s products are not quite the same.
This statement is just something that cannot stand:
This is a counter-factual statement that cannot be proven, nor disproven. There is no way to know the truth of this statement.
It is interesting, though, because, according to Marx, without capitalism, there can be no communism. Capitalism is a necessary step toward the social evolution of Western society. (A lot of commas. I do not know if they are correct.)
For the record, I have never claimed to be a Leninist. Fortunately, attitudes on the Left have variations, with nuance and intricacies that allow for multiple perspectives and multiple attitudes.
Why must everything be a zero-sum game?
Even this statement is highly problematic. Liberals are not really Left. Well, maybe center-left. As far as the issue of big government… nothing in your statements addressed the issue of Representative Governance, or accountability and transparency. Is it ok to shrink government for efficiency at the cost of democratic process, accountability and transparency?
As for the second point: I’ll bite. A peaceful divorce would mean that the Tea Party decides to live like the Amish and only pay for services that they utilize?
As far as parasitism, this is really an area that Tea Partiers and GOP supporters really should not want to get into at this point in time. How many “Red States” are getting more from the Federal Government than they put in? How many “Blue States” do the same? (Here is a hint: It is not proportionate.)
In fact, many Conservative states receive much more federal funding than more Liberal states. Most of the states that G.W. Bush carried used more federal funding then they paid. So, who are the parasites? Does this mean that Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, and other states such as these will no longer take more than they give? And those of us in the “Liberal meccas” will no longer have to give our tax money to these states?
By the way, this is not a claim that all Conservatives are parasites… I do not believe the world is in such terms of Black and White. I do accept that many Conservatives do contribute to American society and to the world. I also understand that many Conservatives are anything but parasites and genuinely want what is best for the nation.
Again, this is probably an area that you do not want to get into, since Parasitism was a concept developed by socialists and Marxists. The concept is that the aristocrats, rentiers, bourgeoisie and others live off of unearned income and exploit the middle/working class proletariat.
(I do understand that Ayn Rand did have a unique view on parasitism that encompassed the under-class as well. But, although a great writer, Rand was a reactionary zealot.)
One more thing:
This was another misconstrued statement from what I had actually stated. I never said the size of the government was actually what mattered… what I contended was that democratic process, equal representation, government accountability and rule of law were the things that were of the utmost importance. Big or small, what really is important is that the government represents the citizens of its country. When the government does not represent the people, what is happening in Egypt is what results. The people in Egypt are not angry at the size of their government, but of the process.
Adam said:
“Have you read Imperialism, the HIghest Stage Of Capitalism? What do you find wrong with this examination? Do you disagree with his perspective of monopolistic incentives or cartel control mechanisms? Or do you find fault with his analysis of banking institutions?”
It appear you do find his analysis worthy – worthy enough to ask me to spend my time reading about it. So you do trust his view on major aspects of capitalism.
So whether you call your self a Leninist or not, you do trust his analysis enough to support your blog post – to dismiss, discard, devalue, – or whatever negative you wish to use to dump on capitalism. So you do trust in Lenin for deciding our economic path.
Oh but wait, Marx said capitalism was transitionally necessary so now you can’t get yourself be too hard on it. We wouldn’t want to invalidate Marx /sarc.
As you paraphrase Lenin:
“monopoly and financial oligarchy is the ultimate goal of any capitalist entity.”
What utter rubbish. If you want to read about capitalism then read Hayek, Mises or Smith. Asking me to read Lenin to learn about capitalism is like telling someone to read Mein Kampf to learn about Jews. When you want to read about communism then you might want to read Lenin… but mostly for laughs.
“no other iPad, and other competitor’s products are not quite the same.”
Yes, according to Samsung and many techies, the Galaxy tablet is better; and the multitude of look-alikes about to enter the market will give the Ipad much to compete with. As Apple discovered many times before, the race is never over- at least in a free market. I think it’s best if you don’t venture into the economics of the tech world – apparently, it’s not your area of expertise.
“Counter-factual”? my tushy – Apparently your knowledge about the invention of gasoline and British Petroleum’s project to make something of the Saudi natural resource is severely lacking. Of course as a leftist you would like to believe that the incentive of making a profit has nothing at all to do with all the inventions for which you depend on today – that somehow without personal material incentives the world would have created all that you take for granted.
Adam Baum said:
“Is it ok to shrink government for efficiency at the cost of democratic process, accountability and transparency?”
Reverting from Big federal government to SUBSIDIARITY is done exactly for the purpose of democratic process, accountability, and transparency. The loss of those three are the casualties of Big Gov, as has always, YES ALWAYS been the case- and is in full swing now.
The big lie the left wishes to propagate about the Tea Party is that they don’t think the it’s willing to part with all the govt. dole i.e. social security, medicare, medicaid and the like. Total hogwash – the Tea Party says in response to that, “return to me all the money I have paid into SS and taxes to fund that socialist agenda and I will happily exclude myself from receiving that benefit”. Did you not learn that even FDR proposed SS to just be a temporary measure?
Adam said:
“As for the second point: I’ll bite.”
Does this mean you finally accept that our divorce would be good for both of us? Or does it mean that you’re willing to do it only if we become Amish? Hard to know. The last time you gave your assent to the divorce you quickly reneged citing how much you cared about us non-liberals – among some other lame protestations. So I’d like to know if you, like Krugman, agree it’s hopeless to think were ever both going to be satisfied with a middle solution. Of course if we divorced you’d have little to write about – so I doubt you’d be happy about that event.
As far as red states receiving more material benefits, you are, of course, ignoring the 8 trillion dollars in entitlements that have thus far been thrown away on trying to make minorities equal to non-minorities. That number dwarfs the facts that you bring to bear. And of course, the stimulus package went 2/3 to states that voted for Obama and 1/3 to those that voted against. I can’t blame you for not knowing that since it never saw the light of day in any of publications you read.
I have also found Ayn Rand worthy enough to read. Does this imply that I concur with her points? Undoubtedly not… but I still want to understand her vantage and examine her argument.
So, have you read Lenin, or not? I’m unclear.
What about his analysis of Imperialism and Capitalism is in error? (I find several errors, but most of them are due to the fact that he had to veil much of his intended points for fear of retribution from the Czars.
I have read Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Adam Smith… but I do not feel that limiting myself to one perspective allows me to develop a proper perspective. I have also studied Immanuel Kant quite a bit… who influenced Hayek as well as Marx, Nietzsche, Habermas, and Arendt. It is interesting to note that Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek were not particularly fond of Mises and his theories … although they typically agreed with his conclusions.
And I am not eliminating all possibility of benefits from “Free Market Capitalism,” or decrying it as completely negative. I’m simply pointing to the negative aspects of it. (Or are we to believe that Adam Smith was a divine prophet that was infallible?)
Anyone interested in understand the plight of Jews in Germany, or internationally, should read Mein Kampf. As with any information, it should be contrasted with primary and secondary sources.
It appears from your statements that you are unwilling to analyse any perspective that is disagreeable to preconceived notions.
Do you understand the definition of counterfactual? The statement that “the iPhone could not have been developed in a Communist society” is a great example of a counterfactual statement. It was not created in a Communist society. Or was I wrong? Which would then just invalidate the statement completely. Either it is counterfactual or it is false. Otherwise, this is an exercise in semantics, in which I consistently refuse to engage.
Honestly… I do not know if this is counterfactual or false. Either way, it really is my area of expertise, although I have struggled quite a bit to exit the world of tech, as I do not enjoy it anymore… hence my leaving and studying political theory.
I really cannot discuss what I know that Apple knows, because of legal reasons that I really do not want to get into… especially on my own blog.
This is another rhetorical claim that has no substance… and it contradicts earlier claims. Because this is part of the argument that Lenin uses in his examination of Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism. He states that profit motivation supersedes all other motivations. So, I mean… which is it? Is it Lenin is completely wrong? Or is it that he is actually correct?
And I never really have stated there has not been progress in the name of profit… only that in the end of the 20th century, open source has proven that, sometimes, there are intrinsic motivations that produce much more innovation than pure economic incentives.
I have never discounted the progress made during the Industrial Revolution. But I do often make the claim that the Industrial Revolution is over. This is a debatable topic of another nature.
Regarding the claim that “big government” always comes at a price of discarding democratic process, accountability and transparency: I do not see how this is verifiable. There are far too many moderating and intervening variables to consider to argue this point either way.
What I will claim is that, often, “government efficiency” has come at the cost of democratic process, accountability and transparency.
In any case, my point was really that I do not care about the size of government, as long as these aspects are protected – and if the government needs to be larger to enforce this, then so be it.
Claims like this actually endorse the need for a larger government: “thrown away on trying to make minorities equal to non-minorities”
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendments states that there are no minorities in the United States… a revolutionary concept for its time, that “all men are created equal” before the law. Those who are numerical or political minority, evidently, need protection from the majority and/or dominants in American society.
As far as the complaint: the Tea Party says in response to that, “return to me all the money I have paid into SS and taxes to fund that socialist agenda and I will happily exclude myself from receiving that benefit”.
This is a really slippery path to tread… as we could also claim that those of you that want the money you have paid should also have to reimburse all that you have received from the “socialists” that have stolen… and to the descendants of the slave labor that built the United States’ economy and infrastructure…
Really, it sounds like an excuse…as I have stated, the Amish have set legal precedence… and every American has the right to not pay taxes into services they will never use. The problem is that it has to be definite and total. It cannot be an “on again/off again” process.
And yes, that is the only way I would accept secession. Unless you plan on evicting all of the residents of specific regions that do not want to secede, and then what about reimbursing them of their possessions?
I would accept that more money has been given to the top 2% (Wall Street especially) than anyone else in the United States. This is concerning and true and has been true since, at least, the previous President as well as the current. This is not a Democrat/Republic issue, but a have’s and have-not’s issue.
As for the claim of the exorbitant amount of money spent on minorities – this is a false meme that has been perpetuated through specific circles that is worthy of Goebbels. Repeat it enough and it will begin to be accepted as true. The reality is that minorities do not receive a lion’s share of tax moneys.
Where was the anger when G.W. Bush did this, but to a higher degree? Or was it acceptable when the “Liberal socialist states” were denied funds? Because of the lack of outrage of this topic by anyone center-to-Right during the previous president, I’m not even discussing the topic.
As far as what I read… this claim is constantly made in your comments, irregardless of how many times I point out the inaccuracy of it. How would I know I disagree with someone, or something, until I understand them/it? It is not enough for me to just accept that I disagree…I want to know why.
No. I do not agree with Krugman on this topic.
The reality is that I think the problem is that the Left in America is not very left. The reality is that the Democratic Party of President Obama is very centrist and probably the “middle ground.”
That said, the reason I think it is a problem is that there should be compromise and there should be a middle ground… I believe that governments that have been dominated by one ideology tend to end up authoritarian and lacking in any systems of checks-and-balances. The debate should continue, but needs to be civil and balanced.
Compromise is what makes democracy works. On either side of the political spectrum, framing every situation as a “null set” equation is anti-democratic.
This is really the attitude that states, “It is my way or no way” which has encapsulated the New Right in American politics… and why I find it to be anti-democratic. [There are members of the fringe Left that have this attitude, but they are marginal and unimportant.]
Is this intentional? Or are you not supportive of Liberalism? Is the American Left really Socialist, or the only supporters of individual liberty and equal rights? Or was it an aside that was meant as slander? So, can I go back to calling the Tea Party members Fascists and Teabaggers and any other off-color name? (I won’t, because I belive that “an eye for an eye leaves a society blind.”)
For the failure of your comment section to support paragraphs I have inserted dashes between areas.
Adam said:
“are you not supportive of Liberalism?”
As you know, a non-liberal to day means one who is against modern liberalism. Modern liberalism has not a whit to do with individual liberty and equal rights. It is all about FDR’s positive rights, LBJ’s “equality of result”, and being anti-traditional Western civilization – which leads to the opposite of individual liberty and equal rights. Remember where those rights came from? Obama omitted saying from where they came from a couple times and then reread the the Declaration of Independence and corrected himself. So no, you can’t go back to rightfully calling us fascists but that won’t deter you — you will call us fascists regardless. Ad hominem is is the left’s final refuge.
———————————————————-
Adam said:
“as I have stated, the Amish have set legal precedence… and every American has the right to not pay taxes into services they will never use.”
——————————————————–
That is a falsehood… or as you call it – a false meme. As I wrote before and you didn’t respond, in the early 80′s, two Texas counties offered to permanently divest themselves from these benefits and the courts ruled that the laws only apply to the Amish.
——————————————————-
“I think the problem is that the Left in America is not very left.”
Do you imagine that those words are a relevant response to the idea of conservatives wanting to separate from those who embrace either modern liberalism, socialism, Marxism, trade unionism, Hegelism, or any of the flavors of the above.
——————————————————–
Who cares how left you all are? You’re all in favor of ‘economic/social justice’, aka confiscating what half of us work for to provide for the ‘decent’ welfare of others.
———————————————————–
Complaining about the right you say, “It is my way or no way”. Hmmm, kinda’ like reinterpreting the Constitution to mean that ALL states must be coerced into accepting the murder of the unborn (and also demanding that we pay for the murder with our taxes).———————— ——————————- “my way or no way” is your motto not ours; we want the kind of State’s rights that the founders envisioned 200 years ago. Since you aren’t willing to return to that version of State’s rights nor are you willing to let us secede peacefully, you leave us little choice but to remove your yoke from our necks by killing, via another civil war, as many of you as is necessary for us to re-establish our right to live under the ‘consent of the governed’.
——————————————————–
Are you personally willing to die to maintain imposing your values on the half of us who have a very different set of values? Ones that even Krugman realizes are irreconcilable with yours.
———————————————————
You want us both to compromise? Just how do you exactly expect that to happen? Are you willing to give up on ‘social justice’? Are you willing to give up on homosexual marriage? Are you willing to deligitiimize government unions? Are you willing to let states decide the abortion issue? Are you willing to reinstate the death penalty? Are you willing to put up the wall and make the illegals leave? Are you willing to call affirmative action racism? Are you willing to let us begin drilling again? Are you willing to let us build nuclear plants? Obviously not. And there’s no reason that you should – just as there’s no reason for us to not live apart from you having the opposite values.
——————————————————–
Adam said:
“As far as what I read… this claim [that 2/3 the stimulus going to Blue States?] is constantly made in your comments, irregardless of how many times I point out the inaccuracy of it.
http://biggovernment.com/vderugy/2010/03/26/politics-democratic-stimulus-haul-is-almost-double-republicans/
That one was free. The next one– the one that is so inconceivable to dispute- is not free.
———————————————————-
Adam said:
“As for the claim of the exorbitant amount of money spent on minorities – this is a false meme”
So when LBJ in one political breath demanded that the only equality that mattered was the one of results (a.k.a. equality of outcome)……………………..
And in the next political breath created the ‘Great Society’ committing unlimited billions towards that end – just exactly what did you think happened (other than virtually ending Black marriage, creating generations of fatherless, thus forever to be poverty-stricken Blacks)?
——————————————————-
So shall we bet on your quote? Don’t get in a panic. You’ve already made it clear you won’t put your money where your mouth is. And of course that too is a lie because you once made the mistake of offering to bet me. It was on an item that you were just so sure of you couldn’t prevent yourself from reacting in the manner of a human.
Of course since you have zero confidence in your quote above, in this case, you will of course decline my offer and I should expect all nature of dissembling and diversionary tactics to begin – like threatening me, as you once did, with expulsion from your site.
For reply, Please see:
http://www.sighedeffects.com/main-category/2011/response-1/
Another copy and paste blog post? Yours,