For Republicans, The Acceptable Approach To "free Stuff"

[GS_Dirtboy]

Conservatism is an unwillingness to accept change and, by that standard, both Peronists and Republicans are conservative to the point of sclerosis.

I'm conservative and I'm certainly willing to accept change. You have a very black and white view on people, almost infantile actually.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I'm conservative and I'm certainly willing to accept change. You have a very black and white view on people, almost infantile actually.

Certainly there are individual outliers but, when challenged, the default option for both Republicans and Peronists is to double down on failed ideas.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Better to read the guy's whole comment:

"I want folks to think about something. I want folks to think seriously about how slavery really works. Back in the day of slavery, slaves were kept in slavery by denying them education and opportunity while providing them with their basic needs .. Not by beating them and starving them. (Although there were isolated cases if course) Basically slave owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along.
It is my sincere belief that over entitlements are a means of em- slaving the people by robbing opportunity while taking care of basic needs. Think about it. We ARE NOT cattle. We are human beings living in a country that still allows us the opportunity to write our own ticket. But that is rapidly slipping away. We have to wake up fast and realize that entitlements aren't there because politicians love the people. It's a means to gain power over the people allowing them to control us. Vote smart in 2014 and pressure political leaders to focus on jobs, education and opportunity - not slavery."

Basically, he is saying that clientelism is a sort of form of slavery that politicians wish to impose. In many ways, that's very truthful. The Peronists are masters at this sort of thing. Of course, he underestimates that slavery was due to war and bringing people across an entire ocean in destitute and dangerous conditions, and he underestimates that slavery could often be horrifying. But his basic point is true and apparently this politician would be very anti-peronist (the masters of clientelism). It's always important to read comments in context.

We need to recognize that the ultimate goal of most politicians is not usually the well being of us citizens. It is usually power. Both Republicans, Democrats, Peronists, and other politicians operate by the same playbook. It is human nature. That is why we should always be very suspicious of clientelism in politics (and Democrats and Republicans both practice heavy handed clientelism).

 

[nicoenarg]

Better to read the guy's whole comment

Yes but if you did that then you couldn't fling dirt, mislead and cry "RACIST!" that easily...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Better to read the guy's whole comment:

"I want folks to think about something. I want folks to think seriously about how slavery really works. Back in the day of slavery, slaves were kept in slavery by denying them education and opportunity while providing them with their basic needs .. Not by beating them and starving them. (Although there were isolated cases if course) Basically slave owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along.
It is my sincere belief that over entitlements are a means of em- slaving the people by robbing opportunity while taking care of basic needs. Think about it. We ARE NOT cattle. We are human beings living in a country that still allows us the opportunity to write our own ticket. But that is rapidly slipping away. We have to wake up fast and realize that entitlements aren't there because politicians love the people. It's a means to gain power over the people allowing them to control us. Vote smart in 2014 and pressure political leaders to focus on jobs, education and opportunity - not slavery."

Basically, he is saying that clientelism is a sort of form of slavery that politicians wish to impose. In many ways, that's very truthful. The Peronists are masters at this sort of thing. Of course, he underestimates that slavery was due to war and bringing people across an entire ocean in destitute and dangerous conditions, and he underestimates that slavery could often be horrifying. But his basic point is true and apparently this politician would be very anti-peronist (the masters of clientelism). It's always important to read comments in context.

We need to recognize that the ultimate goal of most politicians is not usually the well being of us citizens. It is usually power. Both Republicans, Democrats, Peronists, and other politicians operate by the same playbook. It is human nature. That is why we should always be very suspicious of clientelism in politics (and Democrats and Republicans both practice heavy handed clientelism).

Attempting to rationalize the irrational is a lost cause, but arguing the merits of slavery is beyond despicable. Still, there is no shortage of wingnuts out there to pick up whatever little slack remains: http://tinyurl.com/qfcejgm

 

[internationalguy]

Attempting to rationalize the irrational is a lost cause, but arguing the merits of slavery is beyond despicable. Still, there is no shortage of wingnuts out there to pick up whatever little slack remains: http://tinyurl.com/qfcejgm

While I do agree on the slavery part, my Fargo born- CA raised - well traveled- Obama loving- perfectionist- expat (partial) friend, you constantly try to rationalize the irrational. Just saying.

edit: I forgot viking

 

[nicoenarg]

No one was arguing the merits of slavery. The comments made by the guy were just to point out that not every slave master beat their slaves into submission. Some slaves were kept in chains through other means such as: making sure they didn't get education, keeping them and teaching them to be dependent on the slave masters, as if they couldn't take care of themselves. In effect, taking away any freewill and free thought they might have.

Anyone who thinks that all slaves, in all of history were beaten and kept in physical chains permanently needs to stop watching Django Unchained and avail themselves of a history book.

There are countless ways to enslave people. And countless ways were employed by slave owners to control people, to make sure they remained enslaved.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

No one was arguing the merits of slavery. The comments made by the guy were just to point out that not every slave master beat their slaves into submission. Some slaves were kept in chains through other means such as: making sure they didn't get education, keeping them and teaching them to be dependent on the slave masters, as if they couldn't take care of themselves. In effect, taking away any freewill and free thought they might have.

Anyone who thinks that all slaves, in all of history were beaten and kept in physical chains permanently needs to stop watching Django Unchained and avail themselves of a history book.

There are countless ways to enslave people. And countless ways were employed by slave owners to control people, to make sure they remained enslaved.

So some slaveowners deserved praise, not scorn, for maintaining their property, and emancipation was a mistake.

 

[nicoenarg]

So some slaveowners deserved praise, not scorn, for maintaining their property, and emancipation was a mistake.

HUH?!

No. All form of slavery, whether the slave was forced to stay because he was beaten into submission or because he was forced to stay dependent on the slave-masters, is equally horrible. Its like I'm talking to a kid here. How did you get to your conclusion from me saying, slave owners took their slaves' free will and free thought away? To you taking people's free will and thought is a good and praiseworthy act?

You need to lay off the paco.

PS: Like I said before, stop watching Django Unchained. Slavery isn't just horrible when the slave master is constantly beating the slaves. I know that makes it easy for people to hate slavery but if that is the only way some will hate slavery then I feel sorry for those kinds of people .Slavery in any shape or form is horrible. Even if a slave is well fed (so he or she can carry out their duties properly) it is still horrible because at the end of the day slavery reduces a human being to nothing but property, ultimately, and at all hours, controlled by the will of somebody else. There's no need to add fantastical stories to the reality of slavery. Slavery, by definition, even with the absence of physical abuse should make anyone's skin crawl.

With that said, discussing "slavery" doesn't make someone racist. Likewise, admitting the truth that not all slaves were physically beaten also does not mean that slavery is deemed okay.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

HUH?!

No. All form of slavery, whether the slave was forced to stay because he was beaten into submission or because he was forced to stay dependent on the slave-masters, is equally horrible. Its like I'm talking to a kid here. How did you get to your conclusion from me saying, slave owners took their slaves' free will and free thought away? To you taking people's free will and thought is a good and praiseworthy act?

You need to lay off the paco.

I am merely paraphrasing the Arizona congressional candidate, and following his thoughts to their (il)logical conclusion.