The Mythology of Thomas Sowell

[Caribbean Hen]

“I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.“

Thomas should be a national treasure now that truth is ok again

[kalm]

“I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.“

Thomas should be a national treasure now that truth is ok again

Depends on how the money was “earned”.

[Bobcat]

It doesn't matter how it was earned. My money is none of your business or the governments. I'm done caring about how they spend YOUR money they will not waste mine ever again.

[UNI88]

Probably Sowell's best quote ...



Applies to guns and gay marriage.

[Caribbean Hen]

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said what they did was nobody’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has the right to other people’s approval

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/n ... 061739007/

[Bobcat]

Boom, another hate crime by CH!

[kalm]

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said what they did was nobody’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has the right to other people’s approval

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/n ... 061739007/

True.

But I’ve never been asked by a gay person to accept and approve of their sexuality and relationships. Nor have I ever been forced to as an employer, even here in the Communist Republic of Washington.

[UNI88]

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said what they did was nobody’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has the right to other people’s approval

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/n ... 061739007/

Is asking for the ability to be legally married "asserting a right to other people’s approval"? Or is it asking to be able to do exactly what heterosexual people are doing? A marriage is a contractual relationship. To deny two people the ability to enter into such a contract based on their sexual orientation is discrimination.

[Caribbean Hen]

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said what they did was nobody’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has the right to other people’s approval

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/n ... 061739007/

Is asking for the ability to be legally married "asserting a right to other people’s approval"? Or is it asking to be able to do exactly what heterosexual people are doing? A marriage is a contractual relationship. To deny two people the ability to enter into such a contract based on their sexual orientation is discrimination.

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

[kalm]

Is asking for the ability to be legally married "asserting a right to other people’s approval"? Or is it asking to be able to do exactly what heterosexual people are doing? A marriage is a contractual relationship. To deny two people the ability to enter into such a contract based on their sexual orientation is discrimination.

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

What are the reasons to redefine it?

[Caribbean Hen]

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

What are the reasons to redefine it?

You would need to read the article

[UNI88]

Is asking for the ability to be legally married "asserting a right to other people’s approval"? Or is it asking to be able to do exactly what heterosexual people are doing? A marriage is a contractual relationship. To deny two people the ability to enter into such a contract based on their sexual orientation is discrimination.

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer sowell's?

How would you, Caribbean Hen, redefine marriage?

A compelling argument can be made to redefine marriage by changing the name of what the government calls a civil partnership and letting the term marriage be used by religious organizations. Changing the nomenclature won't change the fact that denying the ability of homosexual couples to enter into a civil or domestic partnership allowed to heterosexual couples is discrimination.

[Caribbean Hen]

“The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined”

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer sowell's?

How would you, Caribbean Hen, redefine marriage?

A compelling argument can be made to redefine marriage by changing the name of what the government calls a civil partnership and letting the term marriage be used by religious organizations. Changing the nomenclature won't change the fact that denying the ability of homosexual couples to enter into a civil or domestic partnership allowed to heterosexual couples is discrimination.

nope, one of these things is not like the other.... sing along until you figure out what that might be

[UNI88]

You didn't answer my question, why should I answer sowell's?

How would you, Caribbean Hen, redefine marriage?

A compelling argument can be made to redefine marriage by changing the name of what the government calls a civil partnership and letting the term marriage be used by religious organizations. Changing the nomenclature won't change the fact that denying the ability of homosexual couples to enter into a civil or domestic partnership allowed to heterosexual couples is discrimination.

nope, one of these things is not like the other.... sing along until you figure out what that might be

You can't define/defend the supposed difference so you duck, dodge and deflect with bullshit. You have nothing.

[Caribbean Hen]

nope, one of these things is not like the other.... sing along until you figure out what that might be

You can't define/defend the supposed difference so you duck, dodge and deflect with bullshit. You have nothing.

A traditional marriage is between a man and woman, this is natural because they can reproduce and have kids the natural way. Kids want a mother and a father..... not a fan of a mother/mother or father/father family dropping the poor kid off at school.... sorry.

[UNI88]

You can't define/defend the supposed difference so you duck, dodge and deflect with bullshit. You have nothing.

A traditional marriage is between a man and woman, this is natural because they can reproduce and have kids the natural way. Kids want a mother and a father..... not a fan of a mother/mother or father/father family dropping the poor kid off at school.... sorry.

You might not like it but it doesn't change the reality that denying a homosexual couple the ability to enter a civil partnership that heterosexual couples are able to is discrimination.

sowell is twisting himself into logical pretzels because he applies his logic inconsistently based on personal bias. Inconsistent how you ask? The article you linked to is inconsistent with this quote:

[BDKJMU]

Again, stop it. You're pretending this never happened.

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden ... d21e7d3594

Again…he paid the back taxes and the weapons charge gets perpetrated without prosecution millions of times every year.

Considering modern politics and the corrupt nature of our entire system…mountain meat mole hill.

This wasn’t some Joe Smoe that didn’t pay his taxes for 4-6 years (I believe he was convicted on 2016-2019 + there were a couple years where the statute of limitations had expired). This was setting up shell company LLCs to get paid by overseas interests using his dad to buy influence in the US govt and hiding that $$$ from the US govt intentionally. These overseas govts and companies sure as hell weren’t paying Hunter millions for his expertise in the oil & nat gas industry or anything else for that matter. The only thing Hunter had expertise in was hookers and blow. This was $$ laundering, tax evasion, wire fraud. ‘But he paid back the taxes’ is like saying a thief shouldn’t be punished because he paid back the value of what he was proven to have stolen.

[Caribbean Hen]

Again…he paid the back taxes and the weapons charge gets perpetrated without prosecution millions of times every year.

Considering modern politics and the corrupt nature of our entire system…mountain meat mole hill.

This wasn’t some Joe Smoe that didn’t pay his taxes for 4-6 years (I believe he was convicted on 2016-2019 + there were a couple years where the statute of limitations had expired). This was setting up shell company LLCs to get paid by overseas interests using his dad to buy influence in the US govt and hiding that $$$ from the US govt intentionally. These overseas govts and companies sure as hell weren’t paying Hunter millions for his expertise in the oil & nat gas industry or anything else for that matter. The only thing Hunter had expertise in was hookers and blow. This was $$ laundering, tax evasion, wire fraud. ‘But he paid back the taxes’ is like saying a thief shouldn’t be punished because he paid back the value of what he was proven to have stolen.

Exactly and the only reason he paid the taxes is because he was fronted the money

[UNI88]

Isn't there a thread for hunter?

[Bobcat]

Isn't there a thread for memes funny pics an stuff?

[BDKJMU]

Isn't there a thread for hunter?

You’re right. But Kalm and GF were going back and forth about Hunter and I jumped in.

[UNI88]

Isn't there a thread for hunter?

You’re right. But Kalm and GF were going back and forth about Hunter and I jumped in.

[Caribbean Hen]

"The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”
Thomas Sowell

[kalm]

Again…he paid the back taxes and the weapons charge gets perpetrated without prosecution millions of times every year.

Considering modern politics and the corrupt nature of our entire system…mountain meat mole hill.

This wasn’t some Joe Smoe that didn’t pay his taxes for 4-6 years (I believe he was convicted on 2016-2019 + there were a couple years where the statute of limitations had expired). This was setting up shell company LLCs to get paid by overseas interests using his dad to buy influence in the US govt and hiding that $$$ from the US govt intentionally. These overseas govts and companies sure as hell weren’t paying Hunter millions for his expertise in the oil & nat gas industry or anything else for that matter. The only thing Hunter had expertise in was hookers and blow. This was $$ laundering, tax evasion, wire fraud. ‘But he paid back the taxes’ is like saying a thief shouldn’t be punished because he paid back the value of what he was proven to have stolen.

I’ve agreed before Hunter was grifting with the foreign contracts. All of it…money laundering, etc. never reached a level where he could be prosecuted. Despite the best in efforts of House R’s.

If we apply your level of evidence to the Trump crime syndicate, they’d fill half a cell block.

Mountain out of a molehill when it comes to how politics on both sides works.

[Caribbean Hen]

This wasn’t some Joe Smoe that didn’t pay his taxes for 4-6 years (I believe he was convicted on 2016-2019 + there were a couple years where the statute of limitations had expired). This was setting up shell company LLCs to get paid by overseas interests using his dad to buy influence in the US govt and hiding that $$$ from the US govt intentionally. These overseas govts and companies sure as hell weren’t paying Hunter millions for his expertise in the oil & nat gas industry or anything else for that matter. The only thing Hunter had expertise in was hookers and blow. This was $$ laundering, tax evasion, wire fraud. ‘But he paid back the taxes’ is like saying a thief shouldn’t be punished because he paid back the value of what he was proven to have stolen.

I’ve agreed before Hunter was grifting with the foreign contracts. All of it…money laundering, etc. never reached a level where he could be prosecuted. Despite the best in efforts of House R’s.

If we apply your level of evidence to the Trump crime syndicate, they’d fill half a cell block.

Mountain out of a molehill when it comes to how politics on both sides works.

Post the evidence on the Trump crime syndicate