- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I was almost certain it was beyond you.
It seems to have been beyond you. Try again. Or don't.
I was almost certain it was beyond you.
My own question that I posed....was beyond my understanding?It seems to have been beyond you. Try again. Or don't.
Did you give up on the original argument, that rich white people were to blame for the schools, because the school boards were dominated by rich whites?
We can't be sure, but I would bet that the board does have similar people, I would just guess they are more similar in their ideology than their bank accounts.
Wonder if that ideology could be more at fault for the failures than race or wealth.
I proved PlayDrive's post to be bull**** early on by posting the membership roster of the Chicago School Board, only two of the six are white (the CEO is black). Of those two, one is probably really rich, the other probably not so much (being a retired associate professor). The rest are black, biracial or latino.
Really? Not sharing power or wealth is not gaining power/wealth either personally or for your interests?
Even that, I think would not get them to. Or they'd blame it on Democrats because they don't understand that there was a time when the radical progressives were Republicans and the Dems were conservative.
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...Wealth is being shared, but how do you share power? Through quota systems?
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...
What does that mean? Radical Progressives good- Conservatives bad?
What a neat little world it is.
Wealth is being shared, but how do you share power? Through quota systems?
Primarily by limiting what effect someone else's power has over you, that is sharing power. That is, government uses its power to keep everyone elses power in check in the right places (what places are those?). Everyone gets the benefit of government power in the form of our military and the countless lives saved through our military efforts (and victories), and our laws at least for a time were heralded as focused primarily on preserving our individual power, i.e. ensuring what power we have is preserved...
It means that once upon a time the Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.
It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
Which illustrates a huge fallacy of liberal "progressives". Change for the better would be progressive. Change for the worse, regressive.
Liberals desperately want to relabel themselves as "Progressives". The fact is that they are actually Regressives.
So you can back that up with historical fact as I did, or just your own rantings?
Ever notice how when secession comes up, the Liberals here are on the same side as Abraham Lincoln and the Cons are calling him a RINO?
It means that once upon a time the Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.
It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.
Of course not, you use the media and the IRS to create a Communist world. Duh...
Sure. Look at Detroit. Look at California. Look at America under Obama.
Regressives.
I did not argue that the GOP has always been the far more progressive of the two parties.
I would.
They Progs still believe the propaganda from the Soviet era that more government involvement in people's lives is 'Progressive' whereas the most revolutionary act in history was freeing man from government suffocation, and that each individual had a soul. Now you see these same Progressives blaming America for all the world's ills and, as usual, defending those who would destroy it.
My contention was that the GOP was not only the proper "Progressive" Party of the last half of the 1800's, but still is the truly Progressive party, as it seeks to forward individual freedom and opportunity. The liberal poster wanted to argue that the GOP only used to be progressive, which is the stuff of the demented liberal mind.
Liberals are regressive. Egregiously so.
Perhaps you can document your statement .............. :roll:
As long as governments divide us into little race boxes an thatd then treat us differently based on color, ethnicity or other real or imagined divisions then racism will continue.
right after I'm shown the stats showing that it's the culture ... :roll:
It means that once upon a time the
Republicans were far more progressive than Democrats were. Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery and change the social dynamic of the South. Democrats did not.
It's actually less of a neat little world than yours where the bad stuff is all progressive Democrats.