TheLastIndependent
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,545
- Reaction score
- 466
- Location
- North Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Its funny how the agnostic left trumpets darwin in the fact of the bible thumping faithful but these same lefties hate the concept when applied to our economic environment
Given that I have to compare the U.S. with other countries, it's Option 1.
What about the Christian left?
I don't tend to give them much thought. They tend to interchange God and Government as the messiah
I'm black and I wouldn't want to go there,so whats your point?What does Liberia and EG in 2012 have to do with what my father went through in Bogalusa La, in the 1950's?How many American blacks of today would want to live in say Liberia or Equatorial Guinea?
Its funny how the agnostic left trumpets darwin in the fact of the bible thumping faithful but these same lefties hate the concept when applied to our economic environment
I don't tend to give them much thought. They tend to interchange God and Government as the messiah
I'm black and I wouldn't want to go there,so whats your point?What does Liberia and EG in 2012 have to do with what my father went through in Bogalusa La, in the 1950's?
Because you grew up in a nation where even a baby boy born black in the ghetto has more prospects for happiness and prosperity than a child born to the middle-class in most African nations? Just a thought....
Walter E Williams has had some interesting things to say on the matter...
Black Slavery is Alive
to go unchallenged knowing my own family history.Before the 60s, the United States was a beacon of freedom.
Tough to vote on this one because I don't believe that the United States is what it was intended to be, or was for the better part of the first century of its existance.
Probably my best description of what the United States currently is would be..... "A wonderfully devised experiment gone terribly wrong."
I have a good friend who is finishing up his doctorate in American history. Once I asked him when he thought America would peak.
"1789", he told me "It's all been downhill since then". :lol:
Whining be evolution's sore losers. They both had a chance to develop their own independent societies but were incapable of it. So they demanded to freeload off those who had done a better job of self-development.Prior to the 60's,my father(who was both a WW2 and Korean War vet) was a blackman living in the South under Jim Crow Laws and my mother was an Ononadonga Indian living in the Res (an extremely povert stricken place back then,Still is) in upstate NY.Seems they had a different view of that "beacon of freedom" since they both where beaten,arrested,spit upon,attacked by police dogs,and shot engaging in peaceful civil rights demonstrations just somI can enjoy the freedoms I enjoy today.
Why do socialists since the 60s support the lumpen proletariat? There are parasites at both the top and the bottom. Our fake Left comes slumming from the top to disintegrate the majority from the bottom up.I would say the turning point was December 23, 1913. At that point, financial control of the United States was transferred from the government, and thus from the people, to a small group of private business owners who have been using it for their own gain ever since.
But even in spite of our flaws, we still strive to be freer than other countries. Even when we fail to live up to that ideal, we still strive for it reaaaaalllly hard. Now, when we can eliminate the institutionalized racism, poverty, sexism, religious bigotry, oppression of gays, warmongering, and mass incarceration of non-violent drug users, then we'll be "the world's most exceptional nation, a beacon of freedom, the good guys and heroes." Though the strength of that position will be diminished if we don't stop lagging behind the rest of the world. We're the slowest in the industrialized world to adopt social equality, like gay marriage. And remember how we took our sweet time abolishing slavery? We really have a lot of work to do.
Our thoughts are so suppressed under the suffocating domination of birth privileges that you miss Darwin's point on this. He claimed that superior mutations would be passed on through heredity. Therefore, the children of the successful would be born superior and society must focus its resources in making sure that they stayed superior. But superior usefulness to society pops up through random mutations in all classes, not through preservation of a proven superiority through its descendants. In humans at least, the useful gene is not passed on, but goes back in the lottery bowl, where it is usually unexpressed in the next generation.The far-right principle "the strong survive" or social darwinism is pseudo-Darwin. Darwin himself would not have supported it. Humans are now and have always been a tribal species, or one that survived via cooperation with one another. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection applies to competition between different species, not competition between human beings. Our strength as a species comes from both our intellect and our ability to work together. As loners we would have not done well in natural selection. As the tribal communities we became, we were strong enough not only to survive competing with other species; we became the dominant species of the world. Unfortunately some of our members fail to understand Darwin and use a warping of "the strong survive" as an excuse to be cruel and selfish toward other humans.
Whining be evolution's sore losers. They both had a chance to develop their own independent societies but were incapable of it. So they demanded to freeload off those who had done a better job of self-development.
Our thoughts are so suppressed under the suffocating domination of birth privileges that you miss Darwin's point on this. He claimed that superior mutations would be passed on through heredity. Therefore, the children of the successful would be born superior and society must focus its resources in making sure that they stayed superior. But superior usefulness to society pops up through random mutations in all classes, not through preservation of a proven superiority through its descendants. In humans at least, the useful gene is not passed on, but goes back in the lottery bowl, where it is usually unexpressed in the next generation.
Define "peak".I have a good friend who is finishing up his doctorate in American history. Once I asked him when he thought America would peak.
"1789", he told me "It's all been downhill since then". :lol:
Our thoughts are so suppressed under the suffocating domination of birth privileges that you miss Darwin's point on this. He claimed that superior mutations would be passed on through heredity. Therefore, the children of the successful would be born superior and society must focus its resources in making sure that they stayed superior. But superior usefulness to society pops up through random mutations in all classes, not through preservation of a proven superiority through its descendants. In humans at least, the useful gene is not passed on, but goes back in the lottery bowl, where it is usually unexpressed in the next generation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?