the washington...

[NinerSickness]

"Libertarian" in modern parlance has turned into a euphemism for "I don't give a fuck about anyone else, just let me keep a few extra bucks on my paycheck". Of course its all social programs he mentions, ignoring horrendous corporate welfare, pointless subsidies, military pork, and a million other programs that shovel money toward the rich.

Dude, I specifically mentioned corporate welfare too. Read a little more please. I don't know that I would consider myself a true libertarian, but speaking for them they don't like any of those other things you mentioned either. Especially pointless subsidies (ethanol for example; that stupid bullet train boondoggle in CA, AMTRAC, etc).

And I mentioned Federal medicare / Obamacare & Social Security because those are the 3 biggest expenditures in the federal budget by leaps & bounds, and those things pose more than 70 trillion dollars in unfunded liability for the course of people's live who are alive today. There are a million things I could've mentioned, but those are the biggest ones by far.

I mean.....against unemployment benefits? In an economic system with structural unemployment that can't really go lower than 5% even in good times, and is a lot higher these days, its basically heartless to say "sorry, you were born in America, we're a filthy rich country but we don't like to share, so you can go hungry". Ugh. Ideology of the self-centered.

Unemployment "benefits" reward people for not working. It's inherently flawed. Necessity is the mother of invention; if you absolutely need a job, you look for one REALLY, REALLY hard. But like I said, even most libertarians support food stamps & things like WIC to keep people from starving.

 

[NinerSickness]

As you mention, enlisted men and women make basically nothing. In fact, many of them are on food stamps - a program, incidentally, that I'm sure you would eliminate if given the chance.

I just got done saying I wouldn't do that; but I'd give drug tests to people on public assistance in order to avoid funding people's drug habits.

So where's all that money going? Easy. It's lining the pockets of private contractors who supply military technology and equipment. And MANY Republicans are outspoken about protecting those interests.

I will totally give you that there is a ton of pork in the defense budget (or so I've heard), but I don't know exactly what kinds of things are necessary & what aren't. I don't know how many jets, submarines, aircraft carriers, satellites the US needs; I actually think they're way behind the curve in terms of cyber defense though. I'm all for getting rid of the stuff the military doesn't need, but the question is how much do they need? It's not as easy to prove we don't need as many tanks as it s to prove we don't need to send hundreds of millions of dollars going to PBS & NPR. And is the government over-paying for those contracts? It's my understanding that the low bid wins on these things; that's the beauty of the private sector.

 

[Flyingiguana]

pork belongs in the frying pan

 

[NinerSickness]

pork belongs in the frying pan

 

[NinerSickness]

I found it. I've maintained this whole time through the "redskin" debate that the term Redskin is not a racial slur. Consider a speech made by Red Jacket, a Native leader who brought his issues to George Washington along with other leaders in the Iroquois Confederacy.

"The Great Spirit has made us all, but He has made a great difference between his white children and his red children."

Redskin is literal; refers to red pigmentation in one's skin. Both white people and natives used the term "red" to describe the native people, and it wasn't derogatory. I understand that people can use whatever term they want in a derogatory manner or otherwise (like how women sometimes call each other bitch in a friendly or unfriendly manner), but there's a difference between a word that CAN be used as insulting and a universally accepted racial slur. I know some people (liberals) are on a life-long voyage to find things at which to be offended, but this one is just empty rabble rousing.

 

[TobyTyler]

I found it. I've maintained this whole time through the "redskin" debate that the term Redskin is not a racial slur. Consider a speech made by Red Jacket, a Native leader who brought his issues to George Washington along with other leaders in the Iroquois Confederacy.

"The Great Spirit has made us all, but He has made a great difference between his white children and his red children."

Redskin is literal; refers to red pigmentation in one's skin. Both white people and natives used the term "red" to describe the native people, and it wasn't derogatory. I understand that people can use whatever term they want in a derogatory manner or otherwise (like how women sometimes call each other bitch in a friendly or unfriendly manner), but there's a difference between a word that CAN be used as insulting and a universally accepted racial slur. I know some people (liberals) are on a life-long voyage to find things at which to be offended, but this one is just empty rabble rousing.

You've said some stupid shit on this board but this takes the cake.

 

[NinerSickness]

You've said some stupid shit on this board but this takes the cake.

I'll take that as a compliment because if you think it's stupid it must've been brilliant.

 

[NinerSickness]

Tecumseh in a speech around the war of 1812:

"nothing will pacify them except the destruction of all the red men."

"...shared freely whatever the Great Spirit had given his red children."




...and no Tecumseh wasn't calling the natives communists.

 

[TobyTyler]

Tecumseh in a speech around the war of 1812:

"nothing will pacify them except the destruction of all the red men."

"...shared freely whatever the Great Spirit had given his red children."




...and no Tecumseh wasn't calling the natives communists.

Find a non-derogatory reference of the term "Rdskin" and we can talk. I persoanally couldn't care less about that team's name but to say it did not originate as a derogatory reference to native american is absurd. Washington Redskins is no different than Pittsburg Darkies or St. Louis Chinks. Its that simple.

 

[whysies]

Sick is just joking when he says Redskin isn't a derogatory term and then uses quotations that are 200-250 years old to "prove" his "point." Right?

God, I hope so.

 

[TobyTyler]

Sick is just joking when he says Redskin isn't a derogatory term and then uses quotations that are 200-250 years old to "prove" his "point." Right?

God, I hope so.

He proves no point. The references he uses say red men or red people, never the term redskin.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Sick is just joking when he says Redskin isn't a derogatory term and then uses quotations that are 200-250 years old to "prove" his "point." Right?

Well who uses redskin as a derogatory term these days? Probably about 99.999999% of the usage today refers to the football team. The point always remains - they don't call teams the Chickens. Look at the name in a positive light, denoting the fighting spirit of native Americans. I won't say everyone has to think of it that way, but its a healthier mindset than trying to find offense in the name because some people used the term negatively a long time ago.

 

[NinerSickness]

He proves no point. The references he uses say red men or red people, never the term redskin.

Because the terms Red man (referring to the colour of someone's skin) and Red Skin are nothing alike.

Sorry to try to take away an excuse to be offended though.

 

[TobyTyler]

Well who uses redskin as a derogatory term these days? Probably about 99.999999% of the usage today refers to the football team. The point always remains - they don't call teams the Chickens. Look at the name in a positive light, denoting the fighting spirit of native Americans. I won't say everyone has to think of it that way, but its a healthier mindset than trying to find offense in the name because some people used the term negatively a long time ago.

There you go. No one uses it anymore because it is an offensive term. You just closed the case.

 

[TobyTyler]

Because the terms Red man (referring to the colour of someone's skin) and Red Skin are nothing alike.

Sorry to try to take away an excuse to be offended though.

Now you are starting to get it.

 

[RoboticDreams]

There you go. No one uses it anymore because it is an offensive term. You just closed the case.

How the fuck do you know if it's offensive or not? If you are white and a non white calls you a whiteskin, you gonna get all bent out of shape about it? Please tell me how all of these not American Indians, can tell the actual Native Americans, that they should be offended. This is more than injustice, it's about these fraudulent politicians trying to make a buck and/or name for themselves.

 

[TobyTyler]

How the fuck do you know if it's offensive or not? If you are white and a non white calls you a whiteskin, you gonna get all bent out of shape about it? Please tell me how all of these not American Indians, can tell the actual Native Americans, that they should be offended. This is more than injustice, it's about these fraudulent politicians trying to make a buck and/or name for themselves.

LOL! Read what you just wrote. LOL!

 

[RoboticDreams]

LOL! Read what you just wrote. LOL!

You are a moron. Just try to keep up with your team a little better and stop attempting to delve into politics. You have a hard enough time even knowing who the players on this team are.

 

[TobyTyler]

You are a moron. Just try to keep up with your team a little better and stop attempting to delve into politics. You have a hard enough time even knowing who the players on this team are.

Ha ha ha---this from the guy who actually posted post #96 in this thread. LOL!

 

[imac_21]

Tecumseh in a speech around the war of 1812:

"nothing will pacify them except the destruction of all the red men."

"...shared freely whatever the Great Spirit had given his red children."




...and no Tecumseh wasn't calling the natives communists.

Well, plenty of black men have used the n-word to describe their people, even more recently than 200 years ago. I guess if Atlanta wanted to change to the Atlanta N@@@ers you'd be okay with that, because it's close to n###as and blacks use that to describe themselves all the time.