The Utter Contradiction Of The Conservative Religion Exemplified:-

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that the race is fair. And it's not akin to equality of outcome. Obviously you didn't read what I said. You don’t have to go to a “leveling” equality (egalitarian). You permit, even encourage those who may be gifted to exercise their talent , but you change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercises of those talents. You had nothing to do with the talents that you were born with. You may work harder than LeBron James at being a great player, but you'll never match him physically. Is that your fault, or his? How many other players work just as hard or even harder but will never get the same results? He won the genetic lottery and you didn't. What did he have to do with that? No matter how hard you work, you'll never match him. Should you get paid more than him because you work harder? You may work harder than Usain Bolt but you'll never beat him. EVER, no matter how hard you work. People may benefit from their good fortune, or luck in the genetic lottery, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off. Michael Jordan can make $31 million, but only under a system that takes away a chunk of that to help those without basketball skills that he is blessed with. Same with Bill Gates. He can make his billions but he can’t think that he morally deserves those billions. He didn't even invent Windows. But he profited enormously from stealing the idea. To Gates credit, he's created a foundation to help improve the lives of others.

What does the average school teacher make? $42,000. How much does David Letterman make? $31 Million. Is that fair? Yes if a portion of that is distributed to those least well off through taxation. At least then, those less blessed have a chance at improving their lives. Another example: A Justice of the SCOTUS. Just under $200K. Judge Judy makes more. $25 Million. Is that fair? Does Judge Judy or David Letterman work harder than a SCOTUS Justice, or the average worker? Of course not. So the idea of who works the hardest is a Meritocratic concept that doesn't hold water. You aren't interested in who works harder...you're interested in outcomes. Meritocracy permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by natural distribution of talents and abilities. And those are arbitrary. Those that win the lottery are given their winnings, but not because they deserved them. They get them because those are the rules. How hard did they work in laying down $2 books at the store to buy a ticket? Did they work harder than the teacher that makes $42K?

 

Sorry no this Democratic plan is not the same as the heritage plan not even remotely. Brookings agrees with the other two. Like it or not all these early intervention programs simply cannot overcome a home environment that is increasingly toxic as time goes on. And remeber not every at risk kid is African-American or Latino. It isn't helping at risk Caucasian kids either.

 

No, I said it because Thomas Sowell was a marxist, he trained in Distributive economics at Harvard, and argued for Marxist theory at the University of Chicago.

I did not use it as a pejorative or a comment off-hand, this is his description of himself.

Instead, If there's one thing I would equate the minimum wage with, it's racism, for white South Africans used it to discriminate against low-skilled black workers during apartheid. African-americans here are treated to the same effect.

They lose more money because of <1% interest rates than through taxes.

You hear stories all the time about how companies have avoided paying or deferred taxes in one year or another, that isn't the true cost for them. The true cost, is inflation, and the money they lose out on earning by not putting the money in bank accounts with 3 or 4% interest rates.

 

No...but it is a sweeping generality and that makes it a logical fallacy.

And that's another. Do you intend on making a logical argument, or are you going to rely on emotionalism and sweeping generalities? We have the greatest income inequality happening in this country in our history. The answer to this by people like yourself, is to deny people affordable healthcare, deny them food stamps they need to survive, deny them a living wage by advocating for the elimination of the minimum wage itself and deny them unemployment that they've paid into their entire life, through the FICA tax that comes out of their paychecks. You call it an "entitlement" when they've paid into it their whole lives.

And people like you are to be the "groomers"?

You don't know the truth at all. Nobody gives a crap about the wealthy. What people are astonished with is the unbridled greed that is somehow considered a virtue.

 

The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.

Why?

 

Yeah. It is. You can claim that it isn't, however it is. The individual mandate came out of the Heritage Foundation. It's a Conservative Idea.
James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal&#8217;s excellent &#8220;Best of the Web&#8221; column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

This came up at Tuesday&#8217;s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

&#8220;ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That&#8217;s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I&#8217;m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn&#8217;t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

Taranto, who employs the royal &#8220;we&#8221; in his column, writes that he was there when the Heritage Foundation was promoting the mandate:

&#8220;Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage&#8217;s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal &#8220;quality, affordable health care.&#8221;

&#8220;Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage&#8217;s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal &#8220;quality, affordable health care.&#8221;

Stuart Butler&#8217;s lecture describes what the Heritage&#8217;s mandate would look like:

&#8220;We would include a mandate in our proposal&#8211;not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households&#8211;to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family&#8217;s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items.

[video=youtube_share;X61J-5sW288]http://youtu.be/X61J-5sW288[/video]

???? Why are you introducing race into this? Who said anything about A/A's or Latino's? Do you feel some need to "defend whites'?

 

You didn't answer the question. Did he work harder than everyone else? If so, how do you measure that? What's the methodology you used to determine that?

 

You said this; "It was in fact on the issue of the minimum wage that moved him away from Marxism." How is that not equating the minimum wage with Marxism? Apparently that was the issue that moved him away from it, so it must have been viewed as Marxist, either by him or by you.

Racist??? The minimum wage would be in effect everyone. How is that racist? It's not just for A/A's or some racial group. Where on earth do you come up with this? How is it that people like yourself come up with these over the top conclusions that make no sense at all? The minimum wage is racist?? So you're saying that it wouldn't apply to whites as well as everyone else?

1 in 4 Corporations in America pay Zero in taxes. And you're now going to toss out this nonsense as some justification?

 

You can stop blowing smoke on this. Ok? Private schools by definition are private. They all discriminate. That's why they're private. They can and do take who they want. They can accept who they want and their curriculum is entirely their own discretion. Therefore, if it's a religious school, they can indoctrinate their students into their religious beliefs. They can teach creationism for example, rather than accepted science. They can reject applicants based on race or religious beliefs. The Government cannot tell a private school how they are to be run or what course of study they must follow. That's why they're private schools. And that's also why taxpayer funds cannot be used. We don't support religious institutions with tax dollars. And we don't fund discrimination with tax dollars. It's a violation of the Civil Rights Act. If an institution is accepting government funds, they must comply with non-discrimination laws. That would violate the charter of the private school, and they'd be forced to function as a public school. And of course they aren't, since they can decide who can attend and who can't. If you can afford a private school, then send your kid, otherwise stop asking for a government hand out to send little Johnny to St. Bubba's. It's on your dime, not the taxpayer's.

It probably could go farther, but at least it exists. Cutting funding for it is a big mistake. As you say, helping kids to socialize early is vital later on.

 

It was the failure of Minimum wage that moved Thomas Sowell away from Marxism, or to be even more precise, why those in the Gov't wanted it administered.

He is against it, because he realized there are no actors within the gov't or otherwise who lack self-interest.

To put it short, I'm not making a guilt by association comparison which is what you're accusing me of. I'm saying the failure of the minimum wage was so compelling to Sowell that it changed his world view. I'm also insisting that Sowell has relevancy, because it was this issue in particular which had that effect on him.

Because minimum wages targets and harms the least skilled, and who exactly does that tend to be? Will it be the affluent well-established persons in society? Or the least trained, poorly educated, poorly connected?

And true enough, there are white people who fit the latter, but who is it that's disproportionately represented in that section? Who in fact, tends to make up the bulk of the "underclass"? In neither the U.S., nor South Africa, does the answer equate "white".

History. If your understanding of economics can't explain to you why South Africans or the American Federation of Labor would think this way (which they clearly did, as their own words attest), then you need to look closer.

 

Maybe, maybe not. He didnt make his high school team so I am guessing he was t born a natural. It wouldn't matter if he were. Again, equality of opportunity not results. Even if you work harder.

 

No they are not discriminatory. That isn't allowed. Try again.

Why does equal educational opportunity not count to lefties? Because you need that union money kickback?

Isn't education the "great equalizer"?

Nothing is more important to equality of opportunity then equality of education access. You know it.

 

If every conservative votes against it and every libbie for it how is it the fault of the right?

Libs never believe in equality of the races under law or in opportunity. They only use them for their war for equality of outcome. Which they have no plans in achieving for themselves but that is how populists work. They are "more equal" then the rest of us.

 

that isnt what discrimination means in a banned legal context.

like a public magnet school?

Like a public gifted school?

do their parents have a say? why should religion be kept from the kids, is that what the 1st amendment says or your lefter head?

so? parents choose not you.

no it is still a theory.

no they cant if they want to qualify for vouchers.

so? must kids be indoctrinated the way you have planned for them? would an independent education ruin all of then? like it did barack obama?

why cant thy be used? these are just opinions. And your opinion on how kids you never met in your life should be educated carries no weight stranger.

nor would you be. It is for education. It doesnt violate the establishment clause because the oarent decides.

We wouldn't be. Again race can't be an issue if you get voucher money.

like every voucher program pr charter school? fair enough.

wrong. No schools is allowed to discriminate and get vouchers. Stop with the lies.

Handout nothing, these kids have to pay taxes for the crappy public schools the rest of their lives. Lets get some equality of opportunity for poor kids so they can attend the same schools as the rich. Or have you abandoned equality of opportunity again?

If you want see people that will be on handouts go to a public school in Detroit.



It probably could go farther, but at least it exists. Cutting funding for it is a big mistake. As you say, helping kids to socialize early is vital later on.[/QUOTE]

 

The left will never look at the one side of their policies. Their religious devotion won't allow it. You are wasting your time with this one. It would be like getting a priest to admit god has a downside. You won't see it.

 

I think that passage of the Bible went over your head. Here is what another person said about it:

Pearls before Swine refers to a quotation from Matthew 7:6 in the discourse on holiness, a section of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, implying that things should not be put in front of people who do not appreciate their value. An in depth study of this scripture, however, reveals that value isn't the main concern. Pearls before swine is referring to the Gospel given to people whose spiritual capacity hasn't yet reached a point that allows them to understand, respect, or appreciate the good news.
The phrase 'pearls before swine' literally means giving or offering things of high value to people who do not know enough to appreciate them. The phrase was also used by Jesus Christ and was recorded in the bible in Mathew 7:6. Christians say that this was a warning to them not to share their doctrines and faith with people who do not value it.

Your pseudo knowledge of the Bible is telling---but understandable. The popular culture you absorb wants Christianity to conform to its liberal, socialistic values.

If Christ was such a radical socialist, as you say, then why did he so apporve of the capitalistic work of people making interest off their investments?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:14-30&version=ESV

There are many others that look to the Bible, and not at the extra-scriptural ideas of some saint, to base their opinions.

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2011/08/16/the-impossibility-of-a-socialist-jesus/10793

 

De Lasalle, St Henry, St Francis, Loyola, and other Catholic PRIVATE schools in New Orleans desegregated before the public schools. That is a fact, no smoke, just fact.

No they don't; not by color or by religion.

When the state of Louisiana notified the Catholic school system in Louisiana that no more public money would be spent on transportation, lunches or books, Arch Bishop Rummel notified them that on the day the money and services were withheld all Catholic schools would close. They educate about 40% of the kids in Louisiana. What do YOU think happened?

 

And what do you think Paul meant by, "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies?"

 

No smoke, just fact.

Some do accept who best fits their program, some like in Louisiana Catholic school they accept any person regardless of color or religion, and in the case of the poor will usually forgo tuition fees. In Alabama where we live now, the state controls many facets of private education.

CURRICULUM & ACADEMICS
Applies to all private schools
• Instructors and supervisors must have the educational background and experience
necessary to successfully fulfill the educational objectives of the assigned course or
program of study.
• The English language must be used in giving instruction.
• Instruction must be offered in the branches of study required to be taught in public
schools.
• Adequate space, equipment, instructional material and instructor personnel must be
available to provide training of good quality.
• No licensed private school, no public school and no college or university subject to the
state Board of Education may accept credits from a school that was not licensed,
exempted from licensure or entitled to an exemption.
• The curriculum, instruction and each course provided by private schools must be
consistent in quality and content with similar public school programs and standards
established for specific programs by the state Department of Education.
• Each private school must offer only the courses approved in its registration materials by
the state Department of Education. Any proposed changes subsequently made in the
courses outlined must be approved by the department before being implemented.
• No private school may sell, award, grant or confer any earned or honorary degree,
diploma or certificate unless prior permission has been granted in writing by the state
superintendent of education.
• References appropriate to the courses offered must exist in adequate numbers in a
library or resource room to support academic preparation at the academic or
occupational level for each course offered.
• Each private school must provide facilities, equipment, tools, machines, instructional aids
and materials in adequate quantity, quality and variety to meet the educational needs
specified in the stated objectives of each course.
• The site and facilities of a private school must provide adequate and appropriate space to
accommodate the proposed instructional program and to provide program support
services as necessary. ​

 

Now, I'm not cheating here by looking anywhere for more learned opinons.... I think he is talking to the members of a certain Church that he visited and noticed that many of the church members were lazy and not doing enough to support themselves and their families--- let alone their church. They were more interested in gossip instead of working.

No work, no eat. Very common quote. Capt John Smith said it in the New World. Even the Mega-Commie Lenin said the same thing.

Paul also said something along the lines that: a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a non-believer.

 

Look...you said this: ""It was in fact on the issue of the minimum wage that moved him away from Marxism." How is that not equating the minimum wage with Marxism? You're equating the minimum wage with Marxism. You're also on heavy spin cycle. To put it short.

The minimum wage is not a failure despite the moaning of the conservative Sowell, who would hate anything that might actually help people.
According to the Brookings Institute:

1) The minimum wage is currently lower, in purchasing-power terms, than it was in every year from 1956 through 1983.

2) As the President pointed out in the speech, the minimum wage is even lower in purchasing-power terms than it was in one year of the Truman Administration (1950).

3) Relative to the average wage paid to U.S. workers the current minimum wage is comparatively low by historical standards. Today's minimum wage is about 37% of the average wage; in 1968 it was a little more than 50% of the average wage. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

4) The empirical evidence on the effect of boosting the minimum wage, even in slack labor markets, suggests that the adverse employment effects are small. The adverse effects are primarily concentrated on workers who are under age 20, and those minimum-wage workers account for less than a quarter of all workers earning the minimum wage. Even for teenage workers the adverse employment impact is likely to be comparatively small.

5) Even using opponents' estimates of the adverse employment effects of a minimum-wage hike, low income workers as a whole end up considerably better off after the minimum wage is raised. That is because the weekly earnings gains enjoyed by low-wage workers who remain employed is considerably bigger than the weekly earnings lost as a result of lower employment. Low-wage workers recognize this fact, which is why they support a minimum-wage hike by a sizeable margin.

6) In fact, increasing the minimum wage commands broad support in the adult population. It is one of the few explicitly redistributive measures of the government that enjoys such broad popular support.

Another thing you might want to consider is that many adults with families are taking minimum wage jobs, while continuing to look for better jobs. It's not as if jobs are hanging there on trees. They feel it's better to work at something rather than be called parasites by the right wing. So they take what's available. However those wages cannot support a family, so they may be working several minimum wage jobs. To make matters worse, they need to rely on food stamps to feed the family, which the Repbulicans have cut by $40 Billion over the next ten years. On top of that, Republicans would like to repeal Healthcare which is the only means they have for seeing a doctor without going bankrupt. Most of this could be avoided by passing the Jobs Bill that's been sitting in the House for the past several years. We're in desperate need of an infrastructure overhaul, and that would put an army of people to work, who would then not need foodstamps,. and would be spending money into the economy, and lower unemployment from where it is now. But of course that wouldn't be politically good for Republicans, since it might make Obama look good, so this is where we're at. Add to that the move to withhold unemployment insurance from 1.3 million people who've paid into this through the FICA tax their whole working lives, and you have a nice Christmas gift to people who'll no doubt face evictions, possibly lose their car's through repo's, thereby making it impossible for them to even drive to a job if they could get one. So...what's your answer to this situation? What happens when people can't get their unemployment compensation extended. They paid into this. Why would Republicans deny people what they've paid into when they need it? Where are they supposed to go?

One last thing...I could really care less what Thomas Sowell has to say about anything.

 

Link to Christ's quote?

Time to grab you by your gi and face plant you again.

 

So you really don't know do you? If he didn't make his Freshman high school team, it's more likely that he actually had natural talent that helped him rise to the top. To suggest that Michael Jordon lacked natural talent is pretty nuts. I doubt that anybody would agree with you. Nobody is suggesting equal results. I'm my view that's not possible. I have more experience at what I do than others, and I think that matters. However equal opportunity doesn't take into account the fact that those who’ve been favored by nature, are clearly advantaged through no effort on their part. They had nothing to do with the talents that they've managed to obtain through the genetic lottery. What exactly did you do to deserve those kind of moral deserts? Careers should be open to talents. There should be formal equality of opportunity regardless of the accident of birth. If everything is open then the results are just. That's the Libertarian view. , but…it doesn’t extend its insight far enough. If everybody can run the race, everybody can enter the race, but some people start at different starting points and the race isn’t fair. The injustice of this system is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by factors arbitrary from a moral point of view such as whether you got a good or not, or grew up in a family that supported you, endowed you with a small but sufficient fortune, and developed a work ethic and gave you opportunities. Nice work if you can get it, but it's hard to make the case that you deserved it. That being the case, it's just a bit obnoxious to ridicule those that didn't have those advantages as simply lazy and undeserving and having no worthiness. Mitt Romney gave one of his sons $10 Million to start a venture. That's a great kickstarter. If he wasn't Romney's son, where would he have gotten that?

 

Are you saying that a private school must accept everyone?

It does. However that isn't the case. A private school can discriminate. That's not equal opportunity. And what on earth are you talking about with union money kickback?? What does that have to do with the price of cheese? How am I getting Union Money Kickbacks?? You have issues with Unions? I'm not surprised that you are opposed to the working man. Kissing the ass of some plutocrat has some appeal to you I guess.

Not the way you would have it.

We already have that. It's called public education. They have to take everyone. Private schools don't. Are you suggesting that they must take everybody? If not, how is that equal? It's discriminatory.

 

??? What are you talking about? Your question makes no sense. You claim it wasn't hatched in the Heritage Foundation. Clearly you're wrong. It was a conservative idea, and liberals never liked it, but it was better than what we had, and since it was a conservative plan, conservatives wouldn't be dumb enough to oppose their own ideas? Turns out they are. Liberals wanted a Single payer system. Medicare for all. It would have been far less complicated, and it was already in place.

Now you're drifting into more crap with accusatory nonsense that has nothing to do with the post which was about where Obamacare came from. So, given the fact that you're argument was falsified, you now turn to the Red Herring of pointless accusations about race, which is designed to hide your own racial issues which we all know are ingrained in your ideology. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. That pretty much describes you to a tee.