Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/15/03 12:11 AM, karasz wrote:

At 4/14/03 10:36 PM, Taxman2A wrote: Capitalism is the opposite of sanctions. The essence of capitalistic spirit is the "Laissez-faire" attitude-"let it be". Capitalism emphasises fewer governmental rules and sanctions under the general belief that governmental sanctions result in an economically weaker and unfair society.

yeah just like in the 1900's when businesses treated their workers worse than the slaves were treated...

Never did I say at any time that pure capitalism is a perfect construct. What I DID say, however, was that Capitalism has nothing to do with imposing sanctions on others, which is what Bumcheekcity was accusing "capitalism" of doing. Learn to stay on topic, and quit resorting to the strawman fallacy, dumbass.

At 4/15/03 12:28 AM, Taxman2A wrote: Never did I say at any time that pure capitalism is a perfect construct. What I DID say, however, was that Capitalism has nothing to do with imposing sanctions on others, which is what Bumcheekcity was accusing "capitalism" of doing. Learn to stay on topic, and quit resorting to the strawman fallacy, dumbass.

and never did i say that capitalism was bad... all i did was state the point that capitalism has its flaws also.

just so we get both sides of the arguement and not a super-duper capitalism has nothing wrong with it stance...

so fuck off

At 4/15/03 12:11 AM, karasz wrote:
yeah just like in the 1900's when businesses treated their workers worse than the slaves were treated...

you don't know how bad slaves were treated do you?

At 4/15/03 12:38 AM, karasz wrote:

and never did i say that capitalism was bad... all i did was state the point that capitalism has its flaws also.

just so we get both sides of the arguement and not a super-duper capitalism has nothing wrong with it stance...

so fuck off

The entire point of my initial post was to illustrate the fact that BumCheekCity was talking out of his ass in regards to capitalism (no pun intended). It didn't in any way insinuate the idea of laissez faire capitalism to be a good way of life. If you don't have anything which can give any merit to what BumCheekCity had to say, then you should be the one fucking off, as you have no ability to stay on topic.

What you did with your posts is analogous to this:

Anyone Else: George W. Bush is the president of Canada.

Taxman2A : Um... no. dumbass. He's the President of the USA.

Karasz : Yeah right- Bush is just a greedy warmonger invading a small country so that he can get rich off the oil.

You see the point of this example? I was telling the first person that they were completely and flat out wrong. I was not debating a matter of opinion with them, just stating a fact. You then, due to your basic inability to think clearly somehow took me defining capitalism as a political construct to not only be a definition, but in fact also me endorsing it as a good polital construct. You can make any argument you want about what you think about Bush, or Capitalism as the case may be, but the bottom line is that your clever little comment about labor conditions during the industrial revolution had absolutely NO BEARING on the argument at hand.

Run along now.

At 4/13/03 08:49 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote: Now that was tasteless, MC, and you know it. I doubt Powell will run for office. I believe he'll always remain in an advisory role to leadership. John McCain might try his luck again in the presidential run but I seriously doubt he'll ever win the presidency. In my home state, Georgia, whether the new governor, Sonny Perdue, does a good job as Georgia's first Rep. gov. in over 150 years will determine the fate of the party in my state.

Wow... that's quite a politically stratified local government you guys have down there in Georgia! looking at the history of Ohio's governor's it alternates pretty much every decade what party is in charge. Do you have any ideas as to why the Democrats have owned Georgia for so long? Also- any idea how a Republican finally won after all these years?

all i said was hey capitalism has a bad side to it too... and illustrated that point using a valid reference...

because with a truly lassiez faire system that kinda thing can happen...

At 4/15/03 01:05 AM, Taxman2A wrote: Wow... that's quite a politically stratified local government you guys have down there in Georgia! looking at the history of Ohio's governor's it alternates pretty much every decade what party is in charge. Do you have any ideas as to why the Democrats have owned Georgia for so long? Also- any idea how a Republican finally won after all these years?

Well if you knew your US history you should already know why the conservative Democrats in the south have held on to power for so long there. To answer your 2nd question, I would have to say changing times caused that. Republicans becoming more intuned to the South's way of thinking, a large portion of voters becoming discouraged with the previous governor's (Roy Barnes) actions regarding the change of the state flag to what it is now. Throw in the fact that Barnes' condescending view to teachers cost him support from those who are in education. The new governor Sonny Perdue promised voters that he would do something regarding the current Georgia flag, which looks ridiculous by the way. Possibly some credit can go to Bush's win in 2000 which set off a string of Republican wins throughout some states soonafter from the increase in the Republican party's power. Georiga was one of the states whose majority voted for Bush. That might not be all the reasons but it's a start.

At 4/15/03 08:24 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote:

Well if you knew your US history you should already know why the conservative Democrats in the south have held on to power for so long there.

Hold on there sweetheart. There is no reason for to address my polite and completely reasonable question with a condescending undertone. I am quite aware of US History. What I am not, however, aware of, is the various political histories of southern local governments. As a matter of fact, the only people who are familiar with this are people who live in the jurisdiction of southern local governments. For you to accuse me of not knowing my US history would be the same as me telling you that "If you knew your US History, you would be completely aware of why the Eastern Suburbs of Cleveland tend to be very liberal, where as the west side suburbs tend to be very conservative". Of course you wouldn't know that. Why? Because the information is in no way pertinent to you.

Then I apologize. I felt that the way you asked those questions earlier to be condescending as well and I was offended by it.

At 4/15/03 12:19 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote: Then I apologize. I felt that the way you asked those questions earlier to be condescending as well and I was offended by it.

Ok then- no big deal. I didn't mean to sound that way towards you. The reason for my post was that I didn't have a whole lot of knowledge as to the political conditions of Georgia, and thought it was kind of interesting that a state could manage to have one party in control for so long. The part of your previous post where you answered my question is appreciated.

Then in regard to your first question, you would have to look back at the political conditions dating back before the Civil War. A few years before Lincoln became president and South Carolina seceded from the Union, the Union was divided politically into Republican and Democrat. The Republican party controlled much of the North while the Democrats dominated the South. The results of the 1860 election ended with Lincoln, the Republican nominee, in the White House. The Democrat-controlled South seceded from the Union soonafter and when the Civil War was done and over with, the Republicans gained much prominence. Perhaps resentment from having lost to the Yankee Republicans who brought the carpet-baggers probably made Southerners dig deep into opposing them. Democrats in the South mostly represented the views of those who lived there. Developments in the early and mid 20th century with FDR's New Deal brought the Democratic Party to a new image as "liberals" and the Civil Rights controversy that divided the Democrats of the North and the South for a time (some of the Democrats of the South refered to themselves as Dixiecrats at the time most notably former Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina). The Democrats of the South represented the will of the people in control. However, as the years passed with Reagan and Bush Sr.'s administrations, the Republicans became the moral equivalent of the Southern Democrats. The South for the most part hold on to their alliegances to the Democrats especially in Mississippi. I think that's all right for the most part and should answer your question.

In the South today those who vote for the Democratic party number about 10% who truthfully suport the democratic parties ideals. 40% who support the Democratic party because they credit them with their welfare checks and about 50% who vote for the Democrats because "My Pa did." because as Nightshadeplus commented after the civil war the south viewed the Republican party as the party of the yankees. This setiment lives on to this day.

and 90% of blacks vote democratic... and im not sure of the actual make up of the south but im pretty sure there are a lot of blacks...

also... if the national democratic candidate was in good with the NRA, then the south would MAYBE go to the democratic side... but until that happens the south will have local dems and national reps

At 4/16/03 12:33 AM, implodinggoat wrote: In the South today those who vote for the Democratic party number about 10% who truthfully suport the democratic parties ideals. 40% who support the Democratic party because they credit them with their welfare checks and about 50% who vote for the Democrats because "My Pa did." because as Nightshadeplus commented after the civil war the south viewed the Republican party as the party of the yankees. This setiment lives on to this day.

Oh really? That seems to be to me a pathetic quote. I know I've made a few like that, but that is the worst I've seen on this board for a looooooong time...

'My Pa Dad' What? You say that awfully seriously for someone who is saying something as dismissive as that.

At 4/16/03 03:02 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Oh really? That seems to be to me a pathetic quote. I know I've made a few like that, but that is the worst I've seen on this board for a looooooong time...

'My Pa Dad' What? You say that awfully seriously for someone who is saying something as dismissive as that.

Not everything in quotation marks refers to the words that come out of your mouth you arrogant bastard.

I live in the south and I have heard the reason "My Pa Did" used as the soul justification for political affiliation on many, many occasions.