squirrel dog
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 5,564
- 48
- 91
Because compared to the Republicans they are left wing.
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"
Clueless. First, the civil rights movement is overwhelmingly about removing discrimination - something you don't say a word about. Not convenient for your bias. and making things equal to each other not "more equal"
Second, the little bit that could be called 'special treatment', almost entirely affirmative action, is based on the lingering inequality of past discrimination. please explain what i and my children have done to wrong those given protection and more "equal" treatment. I was afforded some opportunity because of what my parents had yes but it is not a racial issue it is economics
It's like having one ball team beating the crap out of the other team's pitcher all game, and then in the 6th inning saying 'ok, now that wrong is ended, you go pitch'. Gee, think the injuries might make the 'equal' new situation less than equal? Affirmative action is something people like you have no idea about - it's based on equality not happening because of the contiuning effects of generations of discrimination. It brings equality. your analogy is flawed or you think that someone deserves something because of a wrong many years ago to someone else that may have looked like you. looking at the team down 15 runs and giving them 20 in the 6th inning to ensure they have a chance is not the answer. The issue is to look at why they are down 15 runs in the first place. The issue is that they did poorly in elementary and secondary schools even though the opportunities are there for them to get a early childhood programs that are not available to the non protected. So if one group does better then we need to take from them and prop up the nonperforming group? My father grew up dirt poor and i will say that what I have today is not because of what he looked like but because of what he did. Having said that there are people that look differently that did better than he did and i have no ill will to those who overcame their particular lot in life and then succeeded. To say that because you can take someones opportunities or property for something that an ancestor may have done is wrong.
You don't see affirmative action where the identified groups are doing better than the 'white males'. So you are a shameless whiner, wanting to keep your stolen loot.
Now I know that's full o'!@#$ cause Ron Paul isn't pegged to the bottom.
How does a man who wants to eliminate most government functions not even halfway towards Libertarian there?
No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"
Shows you how fucked up left-wing politics are when Ralph Nader is merely in the middle of the left.
Couldn't really agree more with this. Capitalism has its pros and cons, and by putting more regulation (but not too much so) we still have innovation and competition, plus we eliminate the problems of corporations abusing of their power.
Actually the chart proves that Democrats ARE left wing since every Democrats but one is to the left of every Republican.No mainstream politician in the US is truly "left wing"
Because compared to the Republicans they're rational, which confuses the sheeple.
Actually the chart proves that Democrats ARE left wing since every Democrats but one is to the left of every Republican.
Remember that left and right are not absolutes but are comparative.
ie. I am a right winger, but I am probably to the left of spidey.
This is a pretty naive view.
To think that government regulation won't end up stifling markets by going overboard and building off itself to create a stifling situation for investment and growth is to ignore the realities of human nature in the political arena of life. Furthermore the perceptual need for big government to continue pumping out laws in order to continue its viewed usefulness amongst the public as a entity of authority that is "getting something done" for the sake of doing something (i.e. passing laws) is also a given.
In addition with regulations you end up with government creating artificial shortages and rationing where they are none along with government determining winners and losers based on who can most influence government officials. Which means you end up with the largest business entities dominating markets because they have the capital to enter or/and survive regulated markets over the little guy along with the deepest pockets to influence government officials.
Clueless. First, the civil rights movement is overwhelmingly about removing discrimination - something you don't say a word about. Not convenient for your bias.
Second, the little bit that could be called 'special treatment', almost entirely affirmative action, is based on the lingering inequality of past discrimination.
It's like having one ball team beating the crap out of the other team's pitcher all game, and then in the 6th inning saying 'ok, now that wrong is ended, you go pitch'. Gee, think the injuries might make the 'equal' new situation less than equal? Affirmative action is something people like you have no idea about - it's based on equality not happening because of the contiuning effects of generations of discrimination. It brings equality.
You don't see affirmative action where the identified groups are doing better than the 'white males'. So you are a shameless whiner, wanting to keep your stolen loot.
AA is kinda BS way it's implemented. Class rather than race should be the leg up. Is a black investment bankers son with a stay at home mom disadvantaged compared to a white trailer park resident who was raised by a minimum wagish single mother when both are applying to medical school? Under current system they say he is.
What's his stance on "Gay Marriage"? I'd get into more detail, but to sum up, you are looking at what he wants to get rid of and not what he still wants it to do.
This is a pretty naive view.
To think that government regulation won't end up stifling markets by going overboard and building off itself to create a stifling situation for investment and growth is to ignore the realities of human nature in the political arena of life. Furthermore the perceptual need for big government to continue pumping out laws in order to continue its viewed usefulness amongst the public as a entity of authority that is "getting something done" for the sake of doing something (i.e. passing laws) is also a given.
In addition with regulations you end up with government creating artificial shortages and rationing where they are none along with government determining winners and losers based on who can most influence government officials. Which means you end up with the largest business entities dominating markets because they have the capital to enter or/and survive regulated markets over the little guy along with the deepest pockets to influence government officials.
What you described is the problem with having no regulation, not with having it. As of right now it's businesses that are using their money as a bargaining chip to create monopolies.
Because compared to the Republicans they are left wing.