Conservatives

[DiveCon]

...When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition....

Pure baloney. Where's your evidence?

Are you familiar with Robert Rector, who made the statements?

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America's various social ills.

Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued conducted extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families.

Robert* E. Rector

Straight out of his Heritage Foundation bio.

]...In 1995, The Wall Street Journal declared, "to understand what Republicans are trying to do about welfare, don’t look to Newt Gingrich. Watch Robert Rector." ....
Robert Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C....

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT

Yes, we are all aware that you just tried to pawn off conservative ideology as fact.

so, because someone is a conservative, they cant ever be right?
ok, then dont you EVER fucking use ANY liberal asshole to back up an opinion of yours
you can only use NEUTRAL opinions


which means you likely wont be able to use ANY source

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Are you familiar with Robert Rector, who made the statements?

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America's various social ills.

Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued conducted extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families.

Robert* E. Rector

Straight out of his Heritage Foundation bio.

]...In 1995, The Wall Street Journal declared, "to understand what Republicans are trying to do about welfare, don’t look to Newt Gingrich. Watch Robert Rector." ....
Robert Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C....

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT

Yes, we are all aware that you just tried to pawn off conservative ideology as fact.

so, because someone is a conservative, they cant ever be right?
ok, then dont you EVER fucking use ANY liberal asshole to back up an opinion of yours
you can only use NEUTRAL opinions


which means you likely wont be able to use ANY source

I back up my points with facts.

Is one of her fellow conservatives all she has to support her statements about how the poor live?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

It hit seventeen percent because there was a war in the not to distant future and the military was ratcheting up it's manpower requirements. And a hell of a lot of people had simply fallen off the radar.

How do you explain that the unemployment rate began falling in 1934?

 

[DiveCon]

Straight out of his Heritage Foundation bio.

]...In 1995, The Wall Street Journal declared, "to understand what Republicans are trying to do about welfare, don’t look to Newt Gingrich. Watch Robert Rector." ....
Robert Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C....

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT

Yes, we are all aware that you just tried to pawn off conservative ideology as fact.

so, because someone is a conservative, they cant ever be right?
ok, then dont you EVER fucking use ANY liberal asshole to back up an opinion of yours
you can only use NEUTRAL opinions


which means you likely wont be able to use ANY source

I back up my points with facts.

Is one of her fellow conservatives all she has to support her statements about how the poor live?

no, stupid
you just want to dismiss her source
you have to use SOMETHING for your facts, please dont ever use any liberally biased source
or you WILL hear about it


btw, wikipedia is a fucking POOR source to use

 

[edthecynic]

Are you familiar with Robert Rector, who made the statements?

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America's various social ills.

Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued conducted extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families.

Robert* E. Rector

Straight out of his Heritage Foundation bio.

]...In 1995, The Wall Street Journal declared, "to understand what Republicans are trying to do about welfare, don’t look to Newt Gingrich. Watch Robert Rector." ....
Robert Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C....

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT

Yes, we are all aware that you just tried to pawn off conservative ideology as fact.

so, because someone is a conservative, they cant ever be right?
ok, then dont you EVER fucking use ANY liberal asshole to back up an opinion of yours
you can only use NEUTRAL opinions


which means you likely wont be able to use ANY source

No, it means CON$ervative sources, especially Heritage, have shown they can't be TRUSTED. CON$ always cherry-pick, and cook and exaggerate everything.

And what are you complaining about, you CON$ use the same logic to reject all Liberal sources. If it's good for you it should be good for everyone. Or do you CON$ need SPECIAL PRIVILEGES" when you debate???

 

[AnnECUCherry]

so, because someone is a conservative, they cant ever be right?
ok, then dont you EVER fucking use ANY liberal asshole to back up an opinion of yours
you can only use NEUTRAL opinions


which means you likely wont be able to use ANY source

I back up my points with facts.

Is one of her fellow conservatives all she has to support her statements about how the poor live?

no, stupid
you just want to dismiss her source
you have to use SOMETHING for your facts, please dont ever use any liberally biased source
or you WILL hear about it


btw, wikipedia is a fucking POOR source to use

Interesting. What makes you think I'll attempt to support a point with a "liberally biased source"?

And I used Wikipedia because it was quick and provided the necessary information -- unless you are ready to do battle over whether the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias or whether Wikipedia accurately quoted the WSJ?!

 

[DiveCon]

I back up my points with facts.

Is one of her fellow conservatives all she has to support her statements about how the poor live?

no, stupid
you just want to dismiss her source
you have to use SOMETHING for your facts, please dont ever use any liberally biased source
or you WILL hear about it


btw, wikipedia is a fucking POOR source to use

Interesting. What makes you think I'll attempt to support a point with a "liberally biased source"?

And I used Wikipedia because it was quick and provided the necessary information -- unless you are ready to do battle over whether the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias or whether Wikipedia accurately quoted the WSJ?!

well now, maybe you should have thought of that before you just dismissed that other source
and debated the points and not the source
but you chose to dismiss the source

 

[AnnECUCherry]

no, stupid
you just want to dismiss her source
you have to use SOMETHING for your facts, please dont ever use any liberally biased source
or you WILL hear about it


btw, wikipedia is a fucking POOR source to use

Interesting. What makes you think I'll attempt to support a point with a "liberally biased source"?

And I used Wikipedia because it was quick and provided the necessary information -- unless you are ready to do battle over whether the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias or whether Wikipedia accurately quoted the WSJ?!

well now, maybe you should have thought of that before you just dismissed that other source
and debated the points and not the source
but you chose to dismiss the source

Thought about what?

That I might "hear about it" from you?!

And, of course, I dismissed the source. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank.

Conservatives wanted ammo for their fight against "welfare." Voila! A conservative think tank came up with a statement claiming that the poor live fairly well.

Gee, whodda seen that one coming?!

 

[AnnECUCherry]

FEMA is characteristic of how the entire government operates. It's the norm, not the exception, hence why I brought it up.

Lew Rockwell: Katrina and Socialist Central Planning

Moreover, 2008 was absolutely not a repudiation of government. Instead it was the opposite. A total embrace of the power and size and scope of government-- the same government that brought on this crisis. Government can never work, no matter which political party is in power. By nature, it is incapable of solving crisis or making lives better.

I didn't say that 2008 was a repudiation of government. I said it was a repudiation of government that didn't work.

And, of course, government can work. Government is not authority. Government is organization.

Government, by nature, simply can never work. It is why the Politburo was unsuccessful in everything they tried to do. You can not command and control human behavior from an armchair. If you watched that video, you'd hear testimony of the rescue effort in Katrina being impeded by the government.

Name me on department of the federal government that is working. Treasury? Look at our economy. Energy? Market is being impeded. We could have had clean energy by now, but bureaucrats picked coal. Education? lol. Transportation? Amtrak....

Name me on crisis that wasn't made worse because of government.

You wouldn't call anarchy "a crisis"?!

 

[Agnapostate]

Not legitimate anarchist social and economic organization. But these anti-government ranters aren't able to comprehend the inexorable connection between capitalism and the state.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

THAT is total BS. If anything the playing field has tilted in the black's favor. Oh woe is me I was born a poor black child? Crap, take advantage of what's offered, man up and make something of yourself already. Many deserving people have been passed over due to affirmative action.

It's incredibly false to state that "the playing field has been tilted in the black's favor."

It hasn't? You have no idea what you are blabbering about..........again. I think what you are trying to assert is that blacks are at a disadvantage from the get go because they are black. THAT is "incredibily" false.

And this "many deserving people have been passed over due to affirmative action" is just more whining BS from people who don't understand -- or more likely, just don't want to recognize -- why a niche must be created for people who don't enjoy the benefits of the 'old boy network.'

Like the US Navy? You have no idea how many deserving people were passed over for promotion due to quotas and I have set in many meetings where those quotas were discussed in the very companies I have worked for. As for creating a niche? Thank you for proving my point.

As I posted on another thread, a lot of truth lies in the comment about people being born on third base and thinking they've hit a triple.

And there is the problem, if they work hard take advantage of what is offered they can get home........you can get home from first base also.

Too many advantaged people don't even acknowledge their advantage and try to pretend that their success is due to their "harrrd werrrk," without admitting that it is a result of the situation into which they were born.

Too many advantaged people? This is about those that are born into a situation where they have to work to get ahead but instead people like you want to just hand it to them w/o them working for it because of race. There is nothing stopping them from accomplishing that if they set their minds to it. Doesn't matter if they are black, white, red or purple.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry you've had to "set" in so many meetings.

Maybe one of them will cover how to reply to posts using the quote function.

Not that I am an expert myself -- I am still trying to figure out how to divide quotes so I can respond at varying points within the quote.

But you've managed to distort the original post to the point that posting it again results in misattribution.

Try again.

Remember, we ain't in Kansas no more, Toto.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

If they did not pursue education or vocational schools for marketable skills, dropped out of school, took illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, refused to improve themselves......then,yes, they did. Most, didn't

And here, in the attempt at sarcasm suggesting that people born black "made bad life choices" we can clearly see the sort of racism embedded in liberalism and which they simply cannot seem to see, themselves. Liberals cannot seem to separate being black from being a victim; consequently, if one is black, one's choices in life have nothing to do with how one turns out. After all, they can't help what color they are and race determines EVERYTHING in this country, doesn't it?

Leave it to liberals to be the first to introduce the color of someone's skin, his nationality, or sexual orientation, for to these people the surface things are all that matters.

Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

...But your FEMA argument is the most senseless...the only thing it PROVES is Bush was incompetent...

There's always a valid argument for less government and improved efficiency...but there is no valid argument for incompetent government...

Exactly. There was nothing incompetent about FEMA under James Lee Witt. The problems with FEMA during and after Katrina can be laid squarely on Bush's having appointed a person with zero emergency management experience as its head.

And the election of 2008 wasn't a referendum on "big government" versus "small government." It was a repudiation of government that didn't work.

FEMA is characteristic of how the entire government operates. It's the norm, not the exception, hence why I brought it up.



Moreover, 2008 was absolutely not a repudiation of government. Instead it was the opposite. A total embrace of the power and size and scope of government-- the same government that brought on this crisis. Government can never work, no matter which political party is in power. By nature, it is incapable of solving crisis or making lives better.

Yep. This is the thing that liberals never seem to grasp. The FEMA clusterf*ck should have been all the convincing needed that government does NOTHING very well and, therefore, should be kept out of the business of everyday life (including most major disasters) as much as possible. A people who depend upon government to rescue them not just from life's major calamities, but from all of its smaller ones, as well, wind up being let down (as happened in New Orleans). Note however that in North Dakota, rrecently, the citizens took their fate into their own hands and fought the rising river without waiting for FEMA to step in. Is not the comparison/contrast rather striking?

BS. You don't know what you're talking about.

I am a survivor of the floods of Hurricane Floyd, dubbed the "Flood of the Century" in eastern North Carolina, although flood levels in many areas reached 500-year heights.

Fortunately for us, if we had to have a catastrophe, it at least happened during the administration of a president who had sense enough to appoint a person with actual emergency management experience to the top position in FEMA.

We had Coast Guard helicopters in the air before the storm had left the state -- so many, in fact, that one hovered over Rocky Mount solely to serve as air traffic control.

Government can work.

It simply has to be headed by someone with more common sense than to appoint a horse show judge to head an agency charged with protecting human life during disasters. eastern

 

[mash107]

I didn't say that 2008 was a repudiation of government. I said it was a repudiation of government that didn't work.

And, of course, government can work. Government is not authority. Government is organization.

Government, by nature, simply can never work. It is why the Politburo was unsuccessful in everything they tried to do. You can not command and control human behavior from an armchair. If you watched that video, you'd hear testimony of the rescue effort in Katrina being impeded by the government.

Name me on department of the federal government that is working. Treasury? Look at our economy. Energy? Market is being impeded. We could have had clean energy by now, but bureaucrats picked coal. Education? lol. Transportation? Amtrak....

Name me on crisis that wasn't made worse because of government.

You wouldn't call anarchy "a crisis"?!

Anarchy is better than fascism. Just ask any person that lived through Stalin. But we're comparing extremes of a situation. I wasn't advocating anarchy. Why can't those functions absolutely necessary for the government to handle be handled by the local government? or the state? At least then it would be more accountable to the people. Remember the Constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How many people died last century at the hands of government? I'm willing to guess about 100 million. How many people died last century at the hands of private forces? Not even 1 million.

 

[JimCo]

The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?[/url]

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

And how would this rate change if we made taxes more "equitible"? The rich instead of supporting a fire dept. or police dept. for all ... would instead have private guards and armies surrounding their estates to protect themselves from the unwashed masses with private hospitals,schools and their own malls. They would still be spending as much ... but you would not get any benefit ... you would be left to your own devices.

 

[editec]

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

When do you show respect for yourself and others... only when others agree with you?

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?


Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

I'm against the patriot act and FISA, obviously.

Go YOU!

Against both wars.

Yes

Against pretty much everything Bush did.

I liked his dog

But Obama is the same old statist, in a different face.

Essantially true.

Same policies, coming from a different political party, does not have different outcomes.

Spot on.

He expanded the war in Afghanistan. Obama has not reversed the Patriot Act. He has not reversed FISA. Instead, he bails out those not worthy of bailouts with money of those that had nothing to do with this crisis.

That's right

As for what I would do if I was FDR. Realizing that Hoover's interventionist policies were a complete and utter failure, I'd allow the market to work. Realizing Hoover's bailouts would never cure the economy, I'd simply allow bad companies to fail. I'd certainly not create the conditions for more men to be forced out of work, out of food and without shelter. But I am a reasonable man, and FDR was a ruthless dictator.

I cannot help but wonder what would have happened when the MAJORITY of our banks went down.

As much as I hate this bailout, the do nothing and let the chip fall where they may approach, might actually have been far worse than what's happening now.

FDIC is on the hook for the saving of Americans right?

So what would have happened when every bank in the USA went down?

Would that have cost MORE than the bailout now?

Seriously...I don't know.

Einstein said the mark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think we can firmly conclude that the entire government is insane, by that justification.

I believe they're reconsitituting a system which failed, so it's fairly obvious to me that all we're really doing is putting off the problem for a while.

I am very disappointed with what I see Obama doing right now.

On that point I am completely in agreement with a lot of people on this board whose politics are wildly different than my own.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Government, by nature, simply can never work. It is why the Politburo was unsuccessful in everything they tried to do. You can not command and control human behavior from an armchair. If you watched that video, you'd hear testimony of the rescue effort in Katrina being impeded by the government.

Name me on department of the federal government that is working. Treasury? Look at our economy. Energy? Market is being impeded. We could have had clean energy by now, but bureaucrats picked coal. Education? lol. Transportation? Amtrak....

Name me on crisis that wasn't made worse because of government.

You wouldn't call anarchy "a crisis"?!

Anarchy is better than fascism. Just ask any person that lived through Stalin. But we're comparing extremes of a situation. I wasn't advocating anarchy. Why can't those functions absolutely necessary for the government to handle be handled by the local government? or the state? At least then it would be more accountable to the people. Remember the Constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How many people died last century at the hands of government? I'm willing to guess about 100 million. How many people died last century at the hands of private forces? Not even 1 million.

Private forces acting on their own volition? Or private forces under government contract?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?[/url]

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

And how would this rate change if we made taxes more "equitible"? The rich instead of supporting a fire dept. or police dept. for all ... would instead have private guards and armies surrounding their estates to protect themselves from the unwashed masses with private hospitals,schools and their own malls. They would still be spending as much ... but you would not get any benefit ... you would be left to your own devices.

I don't know which of us is more at blame for the misunderstanding, but I'll take the blame and try to articulate better: I didn't make any claim that there should be a more "equitable" tax rate.

That is not the point of my post.

The question I posed is "what is fair?" As a conservative, I believe that data should inform policy, so I have tried to provide accurate data. The rich pay a higher % of taxes than they make as earned income. And the per centage actually increased as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

To be rich means that you may be able to support your own fire department, or police security, but, please, either retract your statement, or show me the lawsuits where rich folks in any city have sued to stop paying for those services.

BTW, those of us who home-school, still pay school taxes. Kind of defeats your point and makes it look like boiler-plate class-envy.

The top 50% of income earners pay almost all of the taxes.

For myself, I am in favor of progressive taxation, as opposed to either a flat tax or a confiscatory tax system.

History indicates that lower taxes bring in more federal revenue.

Conservatives see as our aim equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of result.

And, finally, the rich are "us." Under Conservative principles there will always be economic mobility, as there is now. Almost all millionaires began as non-millionaires. Don't miss the beauty of opportunity in American: the rest of the world doesn't.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

>>>PubliusInfinitum...You're doing a pretty good impression of a liberal...

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

When do you show respect for yourself and others...

When their behavior, actions or advocacies are worthy of respect...

only when others agree with you?

While agreeing with me is a good sign, it doesn't necessarily promote respect; where one disagrees and does so through a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, that is grounds for respect... which of course goes a long towards explaining the lack of respect I have for you... Spouting baseless cliches and token platitudes is just nonsense of the weak mind; which explains why leftists are so often found engaging in such.

You advocate for liberty; are you for or against the Patriot Act and FISA?

Where the PA and FISA would be misapplied; meaning where their respective applications would target someone which is NOT known or reasonably suspected of being engaged in overt acts of war against the US, you bet... otherwise, those policies are perfectly justified and what's more they're the sound application of bed-rock principle on which our inalianable rights rest; it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend innocent life against unjustified threat and sport, Islamic Terrorism, is just such a threat. Where individuals seek to use the general public as cover and concealment, and expect to enjoy the high threshold of sound juris prudence, they seek to use the principles on whichour freedom rest against us. Those policies rob them of that tactic and as such, they are the very essence of sound, prudent goverence...

Where a government would abuse those policies and employ them against the general population; for instance where a government would use them in pursuit of a criminal investigation of a citizen that otherwise enjoy the presumption of innocence; that government is, as a result of that abuse, a threat to its citizenry, in and of itself; thus would be subject to and likely willl suffer the rebuke of that citizenry in the most severe terms possible.

If FDR was all wrong when confronted with Americans out of work, out of food and without shelter, what would YOU do?

You recognize that Americans are a tough and independent people, resilient in their determination and perseverence; and get out of their way... assist where assistance is needed and REMOVE THE ENCUMBERANCES OF GOVERNMENT SO THOSE PEOPLE CAN GET TO WORK.

FDR slammed the US market with massive amounts of restrictions... he slaughtered Millions of head of livestock and plowed under millions of acres of crops, to protect the PRICES of what he considered over production. Explain how destroying food by the trainload, lead to feeding those facing imminent starvation.

Your premise revises the conditions of the GD as desperate; they were not... As I said, the recession of 29 was a moderate correction in the market, and the policy of Hoover and FDR simply stood between the market and it's natural means to find its balance.

Capitalism is the natural order of economics; meaning that it will always balance... it may ebb and flow to and from that balance, but it will always balance.

Leftism claims that a scientific understanding of the economy will prevent the markets from severe ebbs and flows... or Boom bust... but it will not; it cannot; as the economy is a function of a practical infinity of variables... Leftists can no more control the economy than they can the Climate and it should be noted that the same arrogance which misleads them to believe that they can control the economy, is what leads them to believe that they've some means to control the unfathamable variables which determine the earths climate.

You people are idiots... which would be fine if you understood that... the danger you represent is that you don't recognize your intellectual limitations and have come to erroneously conclude that your BRILLIANT; which would be fine, IF you did not have access to the power to apply your idiocy.

Your limitations provide that without fail your 'initiatives' are quickly followed with 'Unintended Consequences'... such as the near total destruction of the black middle class through your 'war on poverty' where you thought it sound to subsidize sloth and undermine the cultural mores relevant to the role of males in the nuclear family and so on...

Two world wars, innumerable regional wars and 9-11 are all classic examples of the 'unintended concequences' of leftist policy... and the list of catastrophe from is ENDLESS...




[qoute]Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

Yes and this response of yours is a classic example of just such... the flaccid wrath born of your intellectual impotence; where you appeal to pity as a result of you inability to strike a well reasoned argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ