Previous 11 - 20 Next
Heck, I don't care so much about the grades - let's see Obama's thesis and what not - let's hear the far-left tripe Barry used to razzle-dazzle the Ivory Tower libtards.
Not only is it unfair it's downright RACIST. And I don't accept the BS definition that only the "majority" can be racist. Imagine a sign in the window before the civil rights era: "Help Wanted - Negroes need not apply" - What's the UNSPOKEN message on that sign? That message is: "Jobs reserved for whites." Now take a "modern" preference - "Help Wanted - Jobs reserved for Blacks/Hispanics/Asians" What's the UNSPOKEN message? "Crackers need not apply." It's RACISM, plain and simple.
They knew their representatives were spending the money on other things and they kept electing them. One example - how long was Ted Kennedy a Senator?
The idea that balcks can't be racist is a joke. Ask the two reporters that got beat up at a stop light.
lol - I don't think you get what real culture is about. You also seem to think Republicans are ACTUALLY anti-black, vs. the ginned up BS the left tries to make them out to be. In fact Abe Lincoln was the father of the Republican party, and the same philosophy holds true now as it did then - blacks should be free and equal, and no we don't need huge social programs. Same as today.
In response to:

Real Racism

Stormvetprime Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 9:15 AM
Anything derived from Marx is evil, and evil is a slippery little eel that cannot stand the light of truth. Be it Progressivism, Socialism, Communism - at the end of the day someone who works and/or produces wealth is forced by the government to transfer that wealth in some way to another person who did not earn it. Certainly is is noble to "help the poor" as a matter of morality, but also in the planks of the morality platform are the Commandments not to steal or covet. Full-spectrum morality leaves us with the option to be individually philanthropic, which precludes a gov't program.
Why would we Conservatives have a government-based solution in mind in the first place? It's a stupid question on its face.
Exactly - the argument of "we pay for it anyway" only exists because of a false construct of the 1986 law requiring emergency rooms to give out free goods and services then bill the taxpayers later. Get rid of that theft-via-government-edict nonsense and the "we pay for it anyway" BS goes away.
Exactly - the premise that "healthcare is a right" and that "if it's not provided there's a problem" are false. Healthcare is a mix of goods and services, unlike free speech and so forth. It's not a right, it's something you either purchase or is given to you philanthropically. Putting it in government hands is the same as legislating morality like the Sodomy laws which we saw as unworkable. It's not the government's place to ensure outcomes.
Again though, an oxymoron of a "dilemma" - why would small government minds be obliged to come up with a government -based solution? It makes no sense.
...and we also don't agree with the premise that healthcare is a "right" as well. Healthcare is an aggregate of goods and services which cost money - vastly distinct from free speech or the right against self-incimination which are intrinsic qualities which simply exist with no material cost component. Thus, while healthcare may be important, no one is "entitled" to enslaving the rest of us to ensure their survival, whether that be by forcing doctors and nurses to work for free (direct enslavement), or stealing the fungible wages of others to pay the health care workers (indirect enslavement). Liberty however guarantees that those who feel so compelled are free to donate to a charity which could act s a clearing house for such funding.
Previous 11 - 20 Next