Poly is making me right wing

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Depends if you work for yourself or not, which I do. I just keep track of what I make over the year and then pay taxes at the end of it.

Please don't try and argue self-employed don't pay taxes and deductions. Please don't.

Whether the money is paid weekly, monthly or yearly the effect is the same.

edit - Besides, if you are only making $5 an hour self employed you have an idiot for a boss.

[BeBMan]

After reading this thread completely Hera will start a "Poly is giving me a huge headache" threadi

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is, is that they didn't. Contemporary conservatives - your Barry Goldwaters, Strom Thurmonds, and Ronald Reagans - all were opponents of the civil rights legislation of the 60's that ended de jure segregation and enshrined the right to vote.

1. Thurmond was a Democrat.
2. Goldwater opposed forced segregation (and was right to do so). He foresaw the problems with bussing and all, which drove people out of the inner cities. You cannot force people to integrate any more then you can force them to live in the same neighbourhood together. He approved of the voting rights, but not the whole package.

Nixon built the new Republican coalition on white resentment over open housing and busing to schools.

Which is true. Freedom of association can't force people to live together if they don't want to do so. What happened instead is that the white people moved out to the suburbs, so they wouldn't have to get bussed in.

They didn't like King, particularly after he came up North and the opponents to equality weren't quite Bull Connor-like caricatures. He made quite a few enemies during the five years after his "I have a dream" speech.

Oh, I would say he did, however you neglect the fact that there were many conservatives who did support him, such as Charlton Heston

But, again, you missed the point. King considered himself a socialist. The policy programme that he pushed was that of a left wing social democrat, and advocated massive public demonstrations to achieve those ends.

Yes, but he also rejected Malcolm X's way with the panthers and he insisted that "physical force be met with soul force". He demanded that the laws be respected by his protesters and that they were not to retaliate. That restraint wasn't found with other folks.

He was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, and broke with LBJ over it.

And LBJ wasn't a conservative either. Why would conservatives support the Vietnam war at the time? Nixon promised to end the war, which is one of the reasons they had a massive landslide.

He was emphatically not a conservative. It true that he was not a black nationalist (indeed, he was an internationalist), but that's hardly germane to the point here.

It is germane the reasons why he rejected Malcolm X, not because he was an internationalist, but because of the violence.

The distinction between conservatives and socialists in the US is not whether one approves of Malcolm X.

It is an important reason why conservatives in general approved of Dr MLK. You might not believe this to be the case, but I'm telling you the truth.

No, he didn't insist that the law ought to be followed. He said that unjust laws should be resisted non-violently, but that is a very different thing from following the law. Why do you say such ridiculous nonsense?

Because of this:

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Dr. King is a Thomist. He is a conservative. This whole discussion only makes sense if he is a Thomist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please don't try and argue self-employed don't pay taxes and deductions. Please don't.

You made the BAM that if I make 800 a month that I would only get 650 take home. There are ways around that. Another would be to simply ask your employer not to withhold. I'm sure you are aware of these.

Whether the money is paid weekly, monthly or yearly the effect is the same.

Hardly. If I take home all my money and pay at the end of the year, they don't get a 12 month interest free loan.

edit - Besides, if you are only making $5 an hour self employed you have an idiot for a boss.

Where did I say that was all I was making? Yes I know self-employed people pay taxes too. I said I just pay at the end of the year rather then in all 12 months. I even have to pay my own CPP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thurmond was a Democrat.

And?

You seem to forget that whole thing where after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white Southern Democrats jumped ship and became Republicans.... including Senator Thurmond.

Why would conservatives support the Vietnam war at the time?

Why do they support it now and say we should have stayed in? Why are they against Nixon's plan to leave?

Because of this:

[q=Dr. King]one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.[/q]



Self pwnage by Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sharpton won 17 percent total of blacks in South Carolina, double his performance overall. If he had gotten up to 40 percent total, it would have been very likely that he would have had 90 or so, like Obama has.

The problem wasn't that he appealed to black people, but that he didn't have a big enough base to start with.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to forget that whole thing where after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white Southern Democrats jumped ship and became Republicans.... including Senator Thurmond.

He wasn't a conservative. He was more of a classical liberal who defended states rights above all.

Why do they support it now and say we should have stayed in? Why are they against Nixon's plan to leave?

Why now? 9-11. You can't seriously say that Vietnam had a similar cause.

Self pwnage by Ben.

All I said is that breaking unjust laws didn't mean it was right to break just ones, which is word for word what Dr. King says.

[Ramo]

1. Thurmond was a Democrat.

At the time, no he wasn't. He stopped supporting the national Democratic nominees in '48. He became a Republican in '64 because the Democratic party was embracing civil rights, and lead the realignment of the South to the GOP. And even what you were saying were true, the vast majority of the Southern Democratic establishment of the time was conservative.

Goldwater opposed forced segregation (and was right to do so).

He opposed federal action to end state-enforced segregation. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which together constituted the most important legal culmination of the civil rights movement.

Freedom of association can't force people to live together if they don't want to do so.

Local school boards often used the bus routes to segregate more integrated cities. And you might appreciate a legal system where it'd be ok to not sell or rent property to darkies, but I'm glad the law was changed.

Oh, I would say he did, however you neglect the fact that there were many conservatives who did support him, such as Charlton Heston

But the most prominent ones didn't. After he was killed (and yes, he was killed by a right wing white supremacist), Nixon (and he was turning to the right at the time) was saying that it was his own fault for promulgating his doctrine of civil disobedience.

It is germane the reasons why he rejected Malcolm X, not because he was an internationalist, but because of the violence.

Why do you keep asserting that conservatism is equivalent to non-violence, and that socialism is inherently violent? Utter nonsense. How can you take what you write seriously?

Dr. King is a Thomist. He is a conservative. This whole discussion only makes sense if he is a Thomist.

You are a ridiculous person.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
...

I won't play the silly game with you today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He wasn't a conservative. He was more of a classical liberal who defended states rights above all.

You come up with the most asinine arguments. How many people do you think consider Thurmond a "classic liberal" rather than a "conservative", and since when have conservatives been against the concept of states' rights (they do constantly violate their position on it though). Reagan campaigned on states rights. As did Nixon. Bush II even made plenty of reference to it.

Why now? 9-11. You can't seriously say that Vietnam had a similar cause.

WTF?!!!! You can't say that conservatives think we should have stayed in Vietnam longer because of 9/11! That was a philosophy conservatives have been advocating since the late 80s. Dan Quayle famously said in the 1988 campaign for one.

All I said is that breaking unjust laws didn't mean it was right to break just ones, which is word for word what Dr. King says.

You said King said the law ought to be followed. You've been shown wrong. He said that when the law is unjust it shouldn't be followed.

If you meant to say all along that he believed just laws should be followed, then WTF?! Who DOESN'T believe that? If you think a law is just, of course you are going to follow it!

[Ramo]

Full PM-box? Change here!

Sharpton won 17 percent total of blacks in South Carolina, double his performance overall. If he had gotten up to 40 percent total, it would have been very likely that he would have had 90 or so, like Obama has.

90% of the black vote in SC is about 40% of the total primary electorate. So thanks for yet another tautology.

Please stop acting like you know anything about America. Please.

[Wezil]

He doesn't do any better with issues on this side of the border.

[Ben Kenobi]

At the time, no he wasn't. He stopped supporting the national Democratic nominees in '48. He became a Republican in '64 because the Democratic party was embracing civil rights, and lead the realignment of the South to the GOP. And even what you were saying were true, the vast majority of the Southern Democratic establishment of the time was conservative.

Unlike the old Grand Wizard Robert Byrd? They were both classical liberals who supported states rights above all, and who were both Democrats at the time.

He opposed federal action to end state-enforced segregation.

Yes sir. He believed it should not be imposed on people who did not want it, saying that freedom of association cannot force people to integrate if they do not want to do so. He was exactly right.

He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which together constituted the most important legal culmination of the civil rights movement.

Where did he oppose the Voting Rights act of 1965?

Local school boards often used the bus routes to segregate more integrated cities. And you might appreciate a legal system where it'd be ok to not sell or rent property to darkies, but I'm glad the law was changed.

I think people should be able to rent to whomever they see fit. I don't think a black landlord should have to rent to white people if they don't want to do so.

But the most prominent ones didn't.

Goldwater defended the civil rights movement, but voted against the bill because he argued that bussing was forced integration which was a bad idea and would not work, and he was right.

After he was killed (and yes, he was killed by a right wing white supremacist),

Wow. Even the Kings pardoned him because they didn't believe he was the man responsible. Do you know better then his family?

Nixon (and he was turning to the right at the time) was saying that it was his own fault for promulgating his doctrine of civil disobedience.

King was one of the stalwarts holding back the tide. Without him things all bust loose in 1968 after he was shot. He argued that himself, that unless black people had a means to express their anger that it would all come out.

Why do you keep asserting that conservatism is equivalent to non-violence, and that socialism is inherently violent? Utter nonsense. How can you take what you write seriously?

Socialism has no qualms about violent demonstrations to further the cause.

You are a ridiculous person.

Whatever Ramo. King was a Thomist. He believed in natural law, and that all laws ought to be based on it. He believed segregation was wrong because it was contrary to the natural law.

You don't have to believe me, but you should be open to what he says himself in his letter. I think the evidence is crystal clear.

[chequita guevara]

[Ramo]

From noted conservative Martin Luther King, Jr.
16 August 1967
Atlanta, Georgia

Now we must develop progress, or rather, a program—and I can't stay on this long—that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. Now, early in the century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. And in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold: We must create full employment, or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote in Progress and Poverty:

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the, that of a taskmaster or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.

Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problem of housing, education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor, transformed into purchasers, will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife, and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

Now, our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth. [applause]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Where_do_we_go_from_here.html