What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing

knapplc said:
LukeinNE said:
knapplc said:
And in none of those threads are there any statements by anyone saying we need MORE government. More EFFICIENT government is a frequently-heard thing, or at least, that's the way I understand it. Government that allocates its resources in different places, but is no larger, is another way I hear these thoughts being expressed.
Click to expand...
I'll say it again: you can't be serious. Just as an example, Obamacare requires people and employers to buy insurance, or they will be punished by the government. That's an obvious expansion of government power. Or from the Elizabeth Warren thread: "1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." Again, this is a proposal that obviously would be an expansion of government power. Nobody that I would classify as liberal on this forum spoke against it.

But there's a want-to, where any time a conservative concept is disagreed with, the knee-jerk reaction is to label the disagreer as "liberal" and presume they simply want the government to be "bigger."
Click to expand...
If there's something the folks on this board who overwhelmingly agree with the policies advanced by what is commonly known as "modern American liberalism" would rather be called, I would be happy to accommodate them.

It's also a complete lie from a conservative standpoint - conservatives in Washington don't want government to be smaller, they just want their pet projects funded more than the other guys' projects. Neither conservative nor liberal in Washington wants or is working toward a smaller government. It's a talking point, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I am not a conservative in Washington, nor do I approve of them. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt I've said anything nice about them on this forum.
Click to expand...

A perfect, amazing example of reading one thing and understanding another. Truly - bravo.
Click to expand...


I find this utterly boring, but whatever. If you truly need an explanation, here you go:

At zero point in any of the threads you listed did anyone explicitly say they wanted BIGGER government. We have laws in place to accomplish everything discussed in those threads. Larger government isn't the answer, and nobody on this board advocates that. You're reading people saying government should be THIS not THAT, and hearing "I want bigger/more government."

As I explicitly stated, most here advocate a reallocation of government resources. Not larger - just focused differently. You completely ignored that, instead going on about labeling people "liberal," which was hardly the point, but easier to riposte so the focus is understandable.

The perfect end of the post was your last line - you're giving yourself a pass here because you say nothing that is approving of the conservatives in Washington. But you don't give the people you label "liberals" here the same pass - hence the irony, and the "bravo." Because that is some truly self-serving myopathy, and while I don't think it was said with intent to harm, it certainly wasn't munificent of you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
At zero point in any of the threads you listed did anyone explicitly say they wanted BIGGER government. We have laws in place to accomplish everything discussed in those threads. Larger government isn't the answer, and nobody on this board advocates that. You're reading people saying government should be THIS not THAT, and hearing "I want bigger/more government."
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I was referring to government power, not necessarily the literal size of the government (though I do think they inevitably intertwine), and never said anyone wanted bigger government.

As I explicitly stated, most here advocate a reallocation of government resources. Not larger - just focused differently.
Click to expand...
Again, my original point was the expansion of government power, not necessarily size - though I frankly think it's impossible to fulfill the wishes expressed on this forum without growing government, as well.

But you don't give the people you label "liberals" here the same pass - hence the irony, and the "bravo." Because that is some truly self-serving myopathy, and while I don't think it was said with intent to harm, it certainly wasn't munificent of you.
Click to expand...
I accept this one. I'll be sure to not assume their common ground with DC liberals/progressives/Democrats unless it is explicitly stated.

 
Only in America is single-payer healthcare, a reasonable environmental policy, taxing the rich at an effective rate higher than that of the middle class, and regulating the massively corruptly deregulated financial sectors considered "huge government" and "far left"

So a moderate Conservative or whatever Luke calls himself equates all of this with just broad-scoped, non-measured liberal agenda and when someone he considers liberal says something like "Police having military capabilities is bad" this somehow goes against the narrative he created that we're liberals, liberals go to all extremes, and liberals always side with government power no matter what. Never mind that this (like most issues really) shouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue and rather just...an issue.

I've posted many times about things that the government should have less power over - the cable and taxi industries, the drug war, the entire military, etc. This falls under one of those areas. Rather than having so much being spent on the military that there's a huge surplus (government contracts enable far to many of these SWAT vehicles, for example, to be made and purchased), that money should be spent elsewhere. We could directly fund police departments so that they could hire more officers and train all of their officers better, rather than just handing them excess war machines because, well someone has to use them!

Luke's train of thought has gone from

Yeah well stop using anecdotes

to

Yeah well sure that data is true but so what

to

Yeah well you guys are so liberal, look at you now, huh, hating big goverment control, GOTCHA.

It's really tiring to wade through and utterly boring and I'm probably just done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tschu said:
Yeah well sure that data is true but so what
Click to expand...
Back to the topic of the thread: the data that you provided on the last page reinforced a truism: racial bias exists. Nobody on here disputes that it exists. The issue is that there's an enormous gap between racial bias existing and blacks living in an "oppressed state" as you put it. That's where the disagreements are, and I'd still welcome an expansion on that area from you. That being said...

It's really tiring to wade through and utterly boring and I'm probably just done.
Click to expand...
If you want to withdraw from any conversation, the only person stopping you is yourself.

 
carlfense said:
Kudos to Rand Paul for this.

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/
Click to expand...
default_mfclap.gif


 
That Rand Paul piece is dead-on about the militarization of police forces, and the link to the armament industry. Our nation's weapons manufacturers made a lot of "stuff" for Iraq & Afghanistan (and got rich doing it). All that "stuff" has to go somewhere, and we're finding out it's dangerous to leave it overseas with our erstwhile "allies." So we're shipping a lot of it home, and giving it to our police.

Those guns, tanks & APCs have one use, and we don't need that in suburbia 99.999% of the time. That 0.001% of the time isn't worth situations like Ferguson.

 
Back
Top