Posted by
CKHustler on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:55:47 AM
Sowell had a very good column today, so if you are reading this days later, I recommend you go back and read that column.
this kid, and I say kid even though he never said his age, syler was acting ridiculous. I only copied one since it could stand alone, but many of his responses were funny, so if you do a ctrl+f find for "syler" you can scroll through them pretty quickly.
syler Location: TX
Reply # 90
Date: Sep 9, 2008 - 11:28 AM EST
question... seriously.
The US was not always a super power. It became a super power around the time of WWII.
This also was the time when a lot of social programs were created, like Welfare.
So, did the social program HELP the US become the super power it is
today? Or could the US have become a super power without the social
programs?
-------------
This next one is from the same column. Proud Liberal is always good for a laugh. He mentioned that conservatives are for inequality and I said he must explain that. This was his explanation. Its a bunch of nonsense, so good luck in a clear decode.
Reply #
195
Date: Sep 9, 2008 - 4:44 PM EST
Subject:
CkHustler
Conservative thought has morphed, though. Burke's explanation for why
some men were born rich and some poor was that God purposely made that
decision. This proved somewhat less than sustainable as democracy grew
in the United States following WWII. But the question still remained,
why is there inequality in consequences or social or economic status.
Conservatives
finally hit on an explanation, sometime in the last 30-40 years I
think. God made men equal in some regard - thus nodding to equality and
democracy - but it was up to the individual to apply himself and
someone who applied himself could do anything he wants to do.
Conservatives
actually have a cognative dissonance at this point. On the one hand you
say that the difference in status depends upon taking personal
responsibility. On the other hand you are quick to point out that
individuals are born with unequal talents - not at this point ascribing
that directly to God - and that equality is unachievable because of the
difference in talents that people are born with, ergo, differences in
income and success are also due to the original inequality of talents.
This
all plays out in a unique utopian fantasy created by conservatives
which you call the "free market." The free market has the magical
quality of rewarding talent and hard work and there is, thus, a direct
causality between birth talent and hard work and economic consequences.
While
you think you are not directly supporting social classes and
inequality, you nevertheless have the attitude that God is a Republican
who either created or lavishly approves of the free market and,
therefore, no changes in what you see as the status quo is justified.
This, I maintain, is tantamount to supporting inequality, and in God's name, I might add.
---------------------------
I guess it is unfair of me to use my talents to get ahead. I must only be as smart as the weakest link.