We'll have to agree to disagree, maybe someday you will expand as a person, there's just too much work for me to do to be responsible for educating you, you win, if you wanted to win continued ignorance.
Come on, you know Sowell is a Libertarian hack with a background in "economics", which is barely a science. Here is the definition of "progressive": a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. There may be a sordid history of progressives and eugenics, but the current progressive movement is not the same. The current conservative movement is the one with problems. The progressives who advocated Eugenics and the other stuff your talking about are not the same as the ones advocating for desegregation, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
Your going into this thing with an agenda your trying to validate. Generational wealth may not be necessary, but generational help is certainly necessary. All the things your parents and grand parents gave you helped you. When your sold away or your parents are imprisoned, this disappears.
I'm not going to debate progressive or conservative policies. My only point was that conservatives riot. We just have to go further back to find a time when they felt disenfranchised, but we're probably going to get there again in my lifetime.
Pick up some real history, for economic history, try Only Yesterday, by Frederick Lewis Allen.
Your confusing Democratic and Progressive. The two have only recently become conflated. Republicans were progressive for a long time and Democrats had many conservative trends. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act that rascists seemed to all become Republican. There are records of many Democrats flipping parties to opppose the Civil Rights Act. Integration and desegregation are progressive and have been since America was founded. If it is ever well founded for generations, there could be a "progressive" movement to segregate, but since the status quo is segregation, the progressive policy is integration and desegregation. The rioters opposing this were conservative, they were seeking to maintain the status quo, the same as the South in the Civil War. They lost at the Ballot box and went to violence and riots. It's not a progressive method, it's a human method. It's also possible for people to mix progressive and conservative policies. Even Obama was conservative on many issues.
Your "statement that there was no clear link between the plight of blacks today and 19th century slavery; in fact, blacks today tend to be poorer largely as a consequence of segregation, eugenics, and the destruction of the black family" Is partially true, those policies of segregation, eugenics, and black family destruction are well documented and resulted from a mix of conservative and progressive policies. Many of the progressive policies were "modified" by vile rascists to facilitate this, similar to how the Republicans supported black in government jobs until Woodrow Wilson purged them. Your also missing the clear policies enacted by local, state, and federal policy makers that prevented blacks from living in certain areas or taking certain jobs. Claiming none of this is related to slavery, is a falsehood. There have never been any reparations for slavery. Slavery prevented generations of African's from handing down wealth and creating strong family bonds. Slavery and subsequent laws prevented black from getting educated, created rifts between house and field slaves. Slavery allowed the rape of black women and the created the inferiority complex of poor whites. All of these issues and more are deeply affecting our culture today. They've influenced how blacks and whites interact, contributed to racism, and allowed "progressives" to advocate the scientific inferiority of blacks. Now that I see where you are misled, I apologize for my earlier frustration. It's easy for someone only familiar with today political climate to assume Democrats are Progressive and Republicans are Conservative in history books.
The best advice is to keep yourself sharp and avoid entangling yourself in huge debts, whether those are monetary debts, healthcare debts (poor living), or psychological debts (over commitment to an employer, industry, or region). I have enough of a chain with family and friends.
Right on, live life today. I'm not saying don't worry about tomorrow, but it will get here either way. If it gets tough, I'll make it better or check out since my responsibilities will be fulfilled. Savers are suckers to be fleeced in today's economy.
Do you have kids, or is your life just waiting for retirement? I'm spending my money now, to give my family a nice life, and it ain't sub-2 year old cars. I just replaced a 1996 with a 2005. No retirement plans, just take each day as it comes.
I'm on the edge of gen-x / millenial. My plan is to work until I die. The age of retirement will be a blip in history. Maybe we'll have some universal healthcare or UBI to let me get by...
Again, your twisting what I said. There were plenty of progressive rioters in the 60's, but the specific riots I'm talking about, where conservative. Here is an example: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/...
Yes, I reached back even further to show conservative riots. My point was that riots are not a progressive or conservative phenomenon. We've seen alot of progressive riots because the conservatives held (hold) the legal power and framework of the state. As that changes, we'll see more conservatives rioting. Riots are the obvious end game when people feel powerless.
I also provided links to white people hurting other white people or white people's property. Every time you see something you just swap it around and pretend the conservatives are on whatever side you support. Your either mentally deficient or just enjoy being obtuse.
Your trying to reframe things and act like I'm some sort of race baiter. Everybody agrees that race politics are bad, single issue voters are bad. "Almost" everyone agrees that minorities have been shit on and deserve a break. Your premise was "conservatives don't riot". I posted examples of them doing exactly that and you just because it involves race you reject it or pretend it was progressives blocking the advance of society. Read the definition of conservative, if someone is trying to stop new things, they are conservative.
Holy shit, your insane. There is not point in arguing with you. Your clearly misstating things. Lynchings are different then Riots, but I also linked to RIOTS that not only did property damage, they completely destroyed black towns.
I'm not commenting on this further. Your stating clear falsehoods and someday someone will find your comments and assume they have some basis in reality. You don't deserve any further opportunity to post your lies.
Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.
Bullshit, your listening to too much Rush. Many lynching were due to minor social transgressions (conservative issue) and fear of interracial sex (conservative issue). There are photos of people picnicking with their families, with lynching victims in the background. It was truly seen as a legitimate extension of the will of the people. It was truly a conservative phenomenon. Heck, the vaunted Boston Tea party was essentially a conservative riot, destruction of property and all.
Personally, I think the bible is a potentially interesting historical record, with some factual basis. I have no interest in delving into it aside from a cursory reading and ability to defend myself from those who weaponize it.
The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating. Those weren't conservatives marching to Selma for Civil Rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like a true "Libertarian" which I used to be, but outgrew.
We'll have to agree to disagree, maybe someday you will expand as a person, there's just too much work for me to do to be responsible for educating you, you win, if you wanted to win continued ignorance.
Come on, you know Sowell is a Libertarian hack with a background in "economics", which is barely a science.
Here is the definition of "progressive": a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
There may be a sordid history of progressives and eugenics, but the current progressive movement is not the same. The current conservative movement is the one with problems. The progressives who advocated Eugenics and the other stuff your talking about are not the same as the ones advocating for desegregation, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
Your going into this thing with an agenda your trying to validate. Generational wealth may not be necessary, but generational help is certainly necessary. All the things your parents and grand parents gave you helped you. When your sold away or your parents are imprisoned, this disappears.
I'm not going to debate progressive or conservative policies. My only point was that conservatives riot. We just have to go further back to find a time when they felt disenfranchised, but we're probably going to get there again in my lifetime.
Pick up some real history, for economic history, try Only Yesterday, by Frederick Lewis Allen.
Your confusing Democratic and Progressive. The two have only recently become conflated. Republicans were progressive for a long time and Democrats had many conservative trends. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act that rascists seemed to all become Republican. There are records of many Democrats flipping parties to opppose the Civil Rights Act.
Integration and desegregation are progressive and have been since America was founded. If it is ever well founded for generations, there could be a "progressive" movement to segregate, but since the status quo is segregation, the progressive policy is integration and desegregation. The rioters opposing this were conservative, they were seeking to maintain the status quo, the same as the South in the Civil War. They lost at the Ballot box and went to violence and riots. It's not a progressive method, it's a human method.
It's also possible for people to mix progressive and conservative policies. Even Obama was conservative on many issues.
Your "statement that there was no clear link between the plight of blacks today and 19th century slavery; in fact, blacks today tend to be poorer largely as a consequence of segregation, eugenics, and the destruction of the black family" Is partially true, those policies of segregation, eugenics, and black family destruction are well documented and resulted from a mix of conservative and progressive policies. Many of the progressive policies were "modified" by vile rascists to facilitate this, similar to how the Republicans supported black in government jobs until Woodrow Wilson purged them.
Your also missing the clear policies enacted by local, state, and federal policy makers that prevented blacks from living in certain areas or taking certain jobs. Claiming none of this is related to slavery, is a falsehood.
There have never been any reparations for slavery. Slavery prevented generations of African's from handing down wealth and creating strong family bonds. Slavery and subsequent laws prevented black from getting educated, created rifts between house and field slaves. Slavery allowed the rape of black women and the created the inferiority complex of poor whites. All of these issues and more are deeply affecting our culture today. They've influenced how blacks and whites interact, contributed to racism, and allowed "progressives" to advocate the scientific inferiority of blacks.
Now that I see where you are misled, I apologize for my earlier frustration. It's easy for someone only familiar with today political climate to assume Democrats are Progressive and Republicans are Conservative in history books.
We can share dentures to keep costs down.
The best advice is to keep yourself sharp and avoid entangling yourself in huge debts, whether those are monetary debts, healthcare debts (poor living), or psychological debts (over commitment to an employer, industry, or region).
I have enough of a chain with family and friends.
Same, when i joined the workforce it was all, "we used to get raises, bonuses, parties, etc..." Sometimes only afew years ago.
If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and drs....like they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.
It would be nice if this was true, but it is not.
citation: http://www.slate.com/articles/...
I hope to become a nutritious slurry when I become to old to work.
Right on, live life today. I'm not saying don't worry about tomorrow, but it will get here either way. If it gets tough, I'll make it better or check out since my responsibilities will be fulfilled.
Savers are suckers to be fleeced in today's economy.
Do you have kids, or is your life just waiting for retirement? I'm spending my money now, to give my family a nice life, and it ain't sub-2 year old cars. I just replaced a 1996 with a 2005. No retirement plans, just take each day as it comes.
I'm on the edge of gen-x / millenial. My plan is to work until I die. The age of retirement will be a blip in history. Maybe we'll have some universal healthcare or UBI to let me get by...
Again, your twisting what I said. There were plenty of progressive rioters in the 60's, but the specific riots I'm talking about, where conservative. Here is an example:
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/...
Yes, I reached back even further to show conservative riots. My point was that riots are not a progressive or conservative phenomenon. We've seen alot of progressive riots because the conservatives held (hold) the legal power and framework of the state. As that changes, we'll see more conservatives rioting. Riots are the obvious end game when people feel powerless.
I also provided links to white people hurting other white people or white people's property. Every time you see something you just swap it around and pretend the conservatives are on whatever side you support. Your either mentally deficient or just enjoy being obtuse.
Your trying to reframe things and act like I'm some sort of race baiter. Everybody agrees that race politics are bad, single issue voters are bad. "Almost" everyone agrees that minorities have been shit on and deserve a break.
Your premise was "conservatives don't riot". I posted examples of them doing exactly that and you just because it involves race you reject it or pretend it was progressives blocking the advance of society. Read the definition of conservative, if someone is trying to stop new things, they are conservative.
Yeah, but the heat will kill the other components way faster.
Your stating alternate facts. I've provided multiple citations and links and you spin them around and pretend they are the opposite of what they say.
And assume liability for every problem and expense on the property.
Don't pay attention to this guy. I think he's some sort of astoturfer repeating bullshit so people will start to think it has a kernel of truth.
If he has a goatee, he might be from some alternate evil reality...
You know that's in North Carolina, right?
On the flip, should we depopulate small rural towns that contribute nothing and pull down tons of subsidies?
Holy shit, your insane. There is not point in arguing with you. Your clearly misstating things. Lynchings are different then Riots, but I also linked to RIOTS that not only did property damage, they completely destroyed black towns.
I'm not commenting on this further. Your stating clear falsehoods and someday someone will find your comments and assume they have some basis in reality. You don't deserve any further opportunity to post your lies.
Thank you, that's why i was confused. Black hat make sense, black box, not so much.
Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.
Bullshit, your listening to too much Rush.
Many lynching were due to minor social transgressions (conservative issue) and fear of interracial sex (conservative issue). There are photos of people picnicking with their families, with lynching victims in the background. It was truly seen as a legitimate extension of the will of the people. It was truly a conservative phenomenon.
Heck, the vaunted Boston Tea party was essentially a conservative riot, destruction of property and all.
Personally, I think the bible is a potentially interesting historical record, with some factual basis. I have no interest in delving into it aside from a cursory reading and ability to defend myself from those who weaponize it.
The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating. Those weren't conservatives marching to Selma for Civil Rights.