• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Breaking down the Tunnels' favorite conservative myth

knowell said:
Imagine a scenario where two kids grow up in a 3rd world country but were born in the US. The first kid has been taught all his life that the US is an unfair country where only those with money and privilege will succeed. He has been taught that lacking these privileges his likely top end is to barely scrape by and do the work that the privileged wouldn't want to do. The second kid was brought up to believe that the US was the land of opportunity and that if you busted your butt and were resolved to conquer any obstacle in your life, there was no limit to what you could achieve.

At 18, each of these kids parents scrape together all of their savings to get the child to the US where he will arrive penniless to try and make his way in life. Ten years later, who would you bet has achieved more and is living a better life? Which of these two is likely unknown to law enforcement and has a job with some sort of opportunity to get ahead in life?
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that since Dems don't really believe the garbage they shovel on people whose votes they are attempting to annuitize, the people aren't supposed to believe it either.

Or something.
 
knowell said:
Imagine a scenario where two kids grow up in a 3rd world country but were born in the US. The first kid has been taught all his life that the US is an unfair country where only those with money and privilege will succeed. He has been taught that lacking these privileges his likely top end is to barely scrape by and do the work that the privileged wouldn't want to do. The second kid was brought up to believe that the US was the land of opportunity and that if you busted your butt and were resolved to conquer any obstacle in your life, there was no limit to what you could achieve.

At 18, each of these kids parents scrape together all of their savings to get the child to the US where he will arrive penniless to try and make his way in life. Ten years later, who would you bet has achieved more and is living a better life? Which of these two is likely unknown to law enforcement and has a job with some sort of opportunity to get ahead in life?
Click to expand...

I would bet on neither.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I think the idea is that since Dems don't really believe the garbage they shovel on people whose votes they are attempting to annuitize, the people aren't supposed to believe it either.

Or something.
Click to expand...

There it is, almost. So close. All you are leaving out is the part about the easily duped poor. Come on jhmd, you can do it...

1) Dems tell poor that the playing field isn't level. Pubs tell them it is
2) poor listen to Dems and give up at life
3) poor keep voting for Dems who tell them they suck and have no chance, give them food stamps
4) Dems profit
 
i'll never understand how a supposed military man holds such contempt for contingency planning. isn't that one of the most basic parts of strategic planning? planning for the worst does not assume the worst outcome.

"don't send out the air cover, guys. that just encourages the infantry to fail at their job."
 
BarcaDeac said:
were poor people better off before entitlement programs?
Click to expand...

it's kinda funny you ask, since the conditions in 1935 at the birth of the welfare system are not dissimilar to today's america (less than a decade removed from the market crashing, lots of unemployment).
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i'll never understand how a supposed military man holds such contempt for contingency planning. isn't that one of the most basic parts of strategic planning? planning for the worst does not assume the worst outcome.

"don't send out the air cover, guys. that just encourages the infantry to fail at their job."
Click to expand...

I don't think that cyclical, subsistence dependency programs are your back-up plan.
 
TownieDeac said:
Precisely. There's also a difference between disagreeing with opinions (and TNC is fairly radical, so it's to be understood that many of his ideas will be disagreed with) and calling someone a hack, too. You can subjectively dislike something without objectively calling it bad or wrong.

I think that because he has brought racial discourse into The Atlantic and the NYT and a wide range of MSM outlets, regardless of whether he "hacked" his way in, he's got the talent to stir the pot. America is navigating some fucked up shit with police and race and politics in the 21st century, and it's probably a good thing to have a loud black voice from Baltimore in the middle of it all.
Click to expand...

rNkF58H.gif
 
knowell said:
Imagine a scenario where two kids grow up in a 3rd world country but were born in the US. The first kid has been taught all his life that the US is an unfair country where only those with money and privilege will succeed. He has been taught that lacking these privileges his likely top end is to barely scrape by and do the work that the privileged wouldn't want to do. The second kid was brought up to believe that the US was the land of opportunity and that if you busted your butt and were resolved to conquer any obstacle in your life, there was no limit to what you could achieve.

At 18, each of these kids parents scrape together all of their savings to get the child to the US where he will arrive penniless to try and make his way in life. Ten years later, who would you bet has achieved more and is living a better life? Which of these two is likely unknown to law enforcement and has a job with some sort of opportunity to get ahead in life?
Click to expand...


Which one is Obama? My money is on him.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I don't think that cyclical, subsistence dependency programs are your back-up plan.
Click to expand...

you mean like how, after 60 or so years of modern warfared development, the US military relies almost exclusively on combined arms with air cover
 
ImTheCaptain said:
you mean like how, after 60 or so years of modern warfared development, the US military relies almost exclusively on combined arms with air cover
Click to expand...

Your commitment to homework would make Professor Nyangoro sweat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top