Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Liberal Priviledge and the lies of the left Liberal Priviledge and the lies of the left

07-17-2014 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemeliminator
They're allowed in the same sense that people are "allowed" to move out of the ghetto. It's not illegal, just extremely difficult because you can only move somewhere else if you have, you know, money. Since reservations were generally stuck on ****ty land in rural areas there's not a lot of jobs.
Of course, it's not like all those 'nice' places to move to welcome minorities with open arms.

Native Americans on reservations...the segregation we don't hear too much about.

b
07-17-2014 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Man2
Or should I care more about Native Americans getting slaughtered 300 years ago over the Vikings slaughtering whoever they slaughtered 1,000 years ago?
Are you in here defending Vikings history on a daily basis? Do you see the difference, or is it completely lost on Arizonians like you?
07-17-2014 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie
Of course, it's not like all those 'nice' places to move to welcome minorities with open arms.

Native Americans on reservations...the segregation we don't hear too much about.

b
What keeps them on the reservation? I can not help but think thousands of central and south american imigrants left far worse circumstances for a better place, even in the face of discrimination and such. Although I agree, many places will not welcome them with open arms and we should do things to help but...there is something keeping people on the reservations and not exploring very real oppurutnities thats not keeping other people from immigrating to our country. You can not tell me its all due to discrimination.

Last edited by rulzbreker79; 07-17-2014 at 08:37 PM.
07-17-2014 , 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie
Of course, it's not like all those 'nice' places to move to welcome minorities with open arms.
And when I drive through west Phoenix there are very few whites compared to Mexican nationals and illegals.

And when I drive through Flagstaff, Arizona I don't see many Asians.

When I drive through Koreatown in LA I don't see many blacks.

Someone mentioned in the racism i have experienced thread that in high school mostly the groups of races stuck together. Sounds like prison to me.

What if I tried to live on the reservation 3 miles from where I live? I bet they wouldn't let me live there and if they did I bet I'd be discriminated against or looked at funny or whatever.

Kind of sounds like this whole multiculturalism doesn't work and it just ends up being all little fragmented societies.
07-17-2014 , 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Man2
And when I drive through west Phoenix there are very few whites compared to Mexican nationals and illegals.

And when I drive through Flagstaff, Arizona I don't see many Asians.

When I drive through Koreatown in LA I don't see many blacks.

Someone mentioned in the racism i have experienced thread that in high school mostly the groups of races stuck together. Sounds like prison to me.

What if I tried to live on the reservation 3 miles from where I live? I bet they wouldn't let me live there and if they did I bet I'd be discriminated against or looked at funny or whatever.

Kind of sounds like this whole multiculturalism doesn't work and it just ends up being all little fragmented societies.
Look at multi-culuralism in the US military.
07-17-2014 , 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rulzbreker79
What keeps them on the reservation? (1)I can not help but think thousands of central and south american imigrants left far worse circumstances for a better place, even in the face of discrimination and such. Although I agree, many places will not welcome them with open arms and we should do things to help but...there is something keeping people on the reservations and not exploring (2)very real oppurutnities thats not keeping other people from immigrating to our country. You can not tell me its all due to discrimination.
1. Not all reservations have casinos on them, some are extremely poor. Even those with casinos have their extremely poor areas.
2. You may be overestimating their 'very real opportunities.'

No, it'd not all due to discrimination, but it does play a huge part in it.

It's an inequality that is commonly overlooked as it may be the 'reservation' insulates the (general) public from seeing it in comparison to other minorities who don't have a reservation(though many did/do have enclaves, and stay for similar reasons--which on main reason is there is more opps in an enclave/reservation than outside an enclave/reservation).

b

Last edited by bernie; 07-17-2014 at 11:58 PM.
07-20-2014 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
Remember the time when Proph claimed pre 1913 America was the good ol days, when things most closely resembled Prophtopia, and I promptly listed 6 or 8 reasons why that place and time was generally terrible for Americans? Proph then basically said it would take too much effort to refute my points.

Cool story bro. Truth is, refuting the sucky nature of children working shifts in coal mines, Jim Crow laws and the Trail of f***ing Tears is an arduous task to undertake. Plus, doing so will almost surely result with you coming across as an antisocial personality, and nobody wants that to happen.

Better to just hand wave the s*** away while getting privately nostalgic about the Gilded Age of yesteryear.
Government didn't have a hand in ANY of this.

You're very close to usurping kerowo's role as the most stupid poster on these forums.

Luckily you won't be alone, though. It seems bernie is a fan.

You're a joke, kid. A narcissistic contrarian, to be more precise. It's even evident in your name, DudeImBetter. (Hint: you're not!)

I'll give you the same ultimatum I gave kerowo: when you decide to start using your mental facilities, I might decide to engage you again.

You know the saddest thing about your propagandic defense of government? You probably don't even get paid for it. Your own ego is your motivator. Pathetic.

/endrant.

I gave you plenty of time to correct yourself, but I would suffocate -- holding my breath -- if I truly expected you to change your ways. Maybe derogatory insults are the only language you speak. ****ing troll.

If you were hoping this thread -- along with your ignorance -- would fade into obscurity, you're mistaken.
07-20-2014 , 09:06 AM
Troll grade: D

Needs new material
07-20-2014 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
Government didn't have a hand in ANY of this.

You're very close to usurping kerowo's role as the most stupid poster on these forums.

Luckily you won't be alone, though. It seems bernie is a fan.

You're a joke, kid. A narcissistic contrarian, to be more precise. It's even evident in your name, DudeImBetter. (Hint: you're not!)

I'll give you the same ultimatum I gave kerowo: when you decide to start using your mental facilities, I might decide to engage you again.

You know the saddest thing about your propagandic defense of government? You probably don't even get paid for it. Your own ego is your motivator. Pathetic.

/endrant.

I gave you plenty of time to correct yourself, but I would suffocate -- holding my breath -- if I truly expected you to change your ways. Maybe derogatory insults are the only language you speak. ****ing troll.

If you were hoping this thread -- along with your ignorance -- would fade into obscurity, you're mistaken.
Hey, Proph. You advocate for bringing back the glory days referenced above. That's you. Everyone else thinks it's madness, myself included.

Way to ID one of the most terrible periods of our history as your Libertarian wet dream. Double points for picking a time when govt made some of its most infamous moves and being like, "YES!"

Last edited by DudeImBetter; 07-20-2014 at 12:44 PM.
07-21-2014 , 01:39 AM
He's got you there, proph
07-21-2014 , 01:48 AM
07-21-2014 , 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
So, you don't see the current influx as an example of unintended consequences? Even though such policies encourage more smuggling, which the laws were meant to prevent? Fair enough. That doesn't justify demonizing "the Micky's of the world", though. He simply wants to prevent this horrible situation in a different manner than you.

Since we're already arming Syrian rebels, why not allocate some of those weapons to Central America?



Give Central Americans a chance to defend themselves!

Of course, just like any suggestion, there will be unintended consequences. We may be run over by Central Americans that we armed, much like ISIS invading Iraq; the weapons may enter the wrong hands; etc. Solutions that come from government are rarely -- dare I say, never? -- the answer.

The only reason any of this is relevant is because open borders would stress the system too much, correct? What's wrong with dropping the whole border enforcement facade, and other government programs along with it?

People are more charitable than you think, but these days government demands large sums of your paycheck without giving much in return to the truly needy. Their inefficiency not only provides subpar programs, but also inhibits third parties from implementing alternatives.

While you guys think on this, remember that there are kids sitting in overcrowded, disease-infested detention facilities right now. They're presumably only there temporarily, though, until they get their court date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
I can't seem to get an answer out of anyone regarding that "open borders" question. I've asked multiple times, in various forms.


The status quo IS essentially what you're proposing. Throw more money at the solution, and the problem will magically go away. Disregard the unintended consequences. Ignore the underlying causes of the problem.

Maybe you should write better? Or perhaps, expound upon what you've already written?

Right now, you just sound like a politician spewing empty rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
Well, I am.

I've asked repeatedly for objections or explanations to my proposed solution on the border crisis, but garnered no responses. I'll ask again:

What's wrong with open borders, while getting rid of government programs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
What's wrong with open borders, while getting rid of government programs?

Everyone has equal rights, and "illegal" immigrants are people, too. Though, your use of the word "degens" -- which I can only assume is short for "degenerates" -- leads me to believe that you consider some people to be a different species all together; so, you may be the worst person to ask.

I've yet to garner any responses on this particular question. DudeImBetter came the closest, by addressing the charity issue, but stalled out once his dystopian depiction was debunked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
I haven't made my stance a secret. When you ignore it as many times as you have, you begin to enter troll territory.

What's wrong with open borders and drastically shrinking government, Jiggs?

Also, you never got back to me on Oh-bomb-em's "disposition matrix":

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
Engage away. We're right here waiting for you to pick a topic your heroes are routinely wrong about. Dig in. Or stop bluffing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
What do you think about Obama's kill list, Jiggs? Do you believe unilateral decisions regarding murder, without due process, are acceptable? Also, why are my "heroes" -- whoever they are, not sure what you're getting at -- routinely wrong for opposing such a notion?

And, would you classify yourself a liberal?

If you debate on the topic, yet don't consider yourself a liberal, nothing is proven.
You dodged then disappeared last time, buddy! Maybe together, we can put this thread back on track? I'm interested to hear the latest brainwashed rhetoric this month. I haven't been able to stomach television news, with all of the pro-war propaganda being disseminated lately.
07-22-2014 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Man2
Vikings were pre 1913 too
Actually, the Vikings didn't exist until 1960, when they were first granted an NFL franchise, and didn't play their first game until 1961.
07-22-2014 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
I haven't made my stance a secret. When you ignore it as many times as you have, you begin to enter troll territory.

What's wrong with open borders and drastically shrinking government, Jiggs?

Also, you never got back to me on Oh-bomb-em's "disposition matrix":
I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't see it. You were involved in ******ed exchanges with so many people, I got tired of following the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proph
You dodged then disappeared last time, buddy! Maybe together, we can put this thread back on track? I'm interested to hear the latest brainwashed rhetoric this month. I haven't been able to stomach television news, with all of the pro-war propaganda being disseminated lately.
To answer your latest Obama false equivalency, no, I don't condone ANY of the worst RW traits of our corporate president. Never have, never will. So if you think you caught me in some form of hypocrisy, you can halt that right now. In my firm view, Obama's failings have everything to do with being too moderate, and maintaining the worst pro-biz, deregulation characteristics of the leader before him - you know the most awful president in U.S. history. You'd know that if you followed my thread history here even a little bit.

Does that clear things up a bit for you?
07-22-2014 , 01:37 PM
Let's lol one more time at Proph proclaiming pre 1913 USA was the nuts. Whew, truly special he is.
07-22-2014 , 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't see it. You were involved in ******ed exchanges with so many people, I got tired of following the thread.



To answer your latest Obama false equivalency, no, I don't condone ANY of the worst RW traits of our corporate president. Never have, never will. So if you think you caught me in some form of hypocrisy, you can halt that right now. In my firm view, Obama's failings have everything to do with being too moderate, and maintaining the worst pro-biz, deregulation characteristics of the leader before him - you know the most awful president in U.S. history. You'd know that if you followed my thread history here even a little bit.

Does that clear things up a bit for you?
Yes, it does. Your frequent blame-shifting to Republicans gave me the illusion that you're pro-Democrat. DudeImBetter isn't the only one prone to them!

However, I disagree that Obama is pro-business, bent on deregulating, or that he's even moderate. If you compare him to someone like Elizabeth Warren, I can understand how you would make this assumption, though.

Oh-bomb-em is Bush III, as far as I'm concerned. He had great rhetoric, but horrible follow through. But, isn't that every politician, ever? The system is a sham, while voting is simply an illusion of choice.

Maybe some other time we can discuss the illegitimacy of taxation?
07-22-2014 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
seriously, one of the things i just don't get about hard-core anti-immigration folks. What, are immigrants kicking you out of your house? Who the **** cares where people go? Also, globalization means you're already competing with folks all over the world for your job, so, deal with it.
07-22-2014 , 02:01 PM
Inside the mind of a madman:

We should just dismantle the govt and live in a state of anarchy. While 99.9% of humanity disagrees, I'm a descendant of Neo and see s*** that they can't see; understand s*** they can't understand.

I'm very special.

With great power comes great responsibility, though. Now it's time to figure out how best the gears of govt should come to a screeching halt. How should I implement my 19th century pipe dream? Gotta figure out how best to get the kids back into the mines and bring on another gilded age for the super rich. Also on the list is getting rid of those pesky anti-discrimination laws...again, to make things resemble the 19th century.

Hmmmm...more to come later. Much to think about.
07-22-2014 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
Inside the mind of a madman:

We should just dismantle the govt and live in a state of anarchy. While 99.9% of humanity disagrees, I'm a descendant of Neo and see s*** that they can't see; understand s*** they can't understand.

I'm very special.

With great power comes great responsibility, though. Now it's time to figure out how best the gears of govt should come to a screeching halt. How should I implement my 19th century pipe dream? Gotta figure out how best to get the kids back into the mines and bring on another gilded age for the super rich. Also on the list is getting rid of those pesky anti-discrimination laws...again, to make things resemble the 19th century.

Hmmmm...more to come later. Much to think about.
If you would quit protecting your inflated, overvalued ego, you could be special, too! The only requirements are persistent learning and humility.

Most people are just ignorant; they haven't heard these viewpoints before. You, however, vehemently resist these ideas while obstructing honest discussion, though.
07-23-2014 , 01:00 AM
Prophet, how much do you love Herbert Spencer? The dude is a relic of the glory days you hold so dear, and the s*** he spewed sounds awfully familiar....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

"He has been claimed as a precursor by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Economist Murray Rothbard called Social Statics "the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written."[18] Spencer argued that the state was not an "essential" institution and that it would "decay" as voluntary market organization would replace the coercive aspects of the state."

~~~

"For many, the name of Herbert Spencer would be virtually synonymous with Social Darwinism, a social theory that applies the law of the survival of the fittest to society; humanitarian impulses had to be resisted as nothing should be allowed to interfere with nature's laws, including the social struggle for existence.

Spencer's association with Social Darwinism might have its origin in a specific interpretation of his support for competition. Whereas in biology the competition of various organisms can result in the death of a species or organism, the kind of competition Spencer advocated is closer to the one used by economists, where competing individuals or firms improve the well being of the rest of society. Spencer viewed private charity positively so long as it did not encourage the procreation of the unworthy, as he believed in voluntary association and informal care as opposed to using government machinery.[28]

~~~

"Spencer denounced Irish land reform, compulsory education, laws to regulate safety at work, prohibition and temperance laws, tax funded libraries, and welfare reforms. His main objections were threefold: the use of the coercive powers of the government, the discouragement given to voluntary self-improvement, and the disregard of the "laws of life."

~~~

What a winner.
07-23-2014 , 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
Are you in here defending Vikings history on a daily basis?
How do you defend 0-4 in Super Bowls. Putrid
07-23-2014 , 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
Prophet, how much do you love Herbert Spencer? The dude is a relic of the glory days you hold so dear, and the s*** he spewed sounds awfully familiar....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

"He has been claimed as a precursor by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Economist Murray Rothbard called Social Statics "the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written."[18] Spencer argued that the state was not an "essential" institution and that it would "decay" as voluntary market organization would replace the coercive aspects of the state."

~~~

"For many, the name of Herbert Spencer would be virtually synonymous with Social Darwinism, a social theory that applies the law of the survival of the fittest to society; humanitarian impulses had to be resisted as nothing should be allowed to interfere with nature's laws, including the social struggle for existence.

Spencer's association with Social Darwinism might have its origin in a specific interpretation of his support for competition. Whereas in biology the competition of various organisms can result in the death of a species or organism, the kind of competition Spencer advocated is closer to the one used by economists, where competing individuals or firms improve the well being of the rest of society. Spencer viewed private charity positively so long as it did not encourage the procreation of the unworthy, as he believed in voluntary association and informal care as opposed to using government machinery.[28]

~~~

"Spencer denounced Irish land reform, compulsory education, laws to regulate safety at work, prohibition and temperance laws, tax funded libraries, and welfare reforms. His main objections were threefold: the use of the coercive powers of the government, the discouragement given to voluntary self-improvement, and the disregard of the "laws of life."

~~~

What a winner. [This sarcastic remark makes it seem as though you've already made up your mind, instead of asking for honest opinions.]
Odd, I hadn't heard of him until your post. I couldn't give you an opinion on him without doing some research first. Just skimming, lol Lamarckism.

Personally, I prefer Spooner. I was sold on him after hearing his Highway Robbery bit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysander Spooner
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Spooner put his money where his mouth was, creating an alternative to the Postal Service, leading by example.
07-23-2014 , 11:33 AM
Proph still rustled he cant just freeload off others
07-23-2014 , 06:29 PM
Proph, thoughts on Docial Darwinism / Survival of the Fittest, as described above? Would this be an intended result of Prophtopia? Net positive? Unavoidable?
07-23-2014 , 06:53 PM

      
m