Ralph Nader - No more scholarships

snoscythe wrote:

I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."



Roger Baldwin, 1928.

That was all I asked for. Thank you. Now, as I said, I don't like the ACLU. I think it is a misnomer because despite their name, they rarely do anything I feel happy about. I don't trust their motives as actually being for civil liberties anymore than I trust the democrat and republican parties actually being on different sides. They both work for the bankers.

Here's a tip: Any acronym that ends with the letter "U" normally is Satan's plaything.





(obviously not when the "U" means "University" - except in the cases of SDSU and UofU. Even in those 2 schools the logic applies.)

taekwondave wrote:

You find it odd that someone wouldn't support a group whose founder's goal was to dismantle the country from the inside?

No, I find it odd that he would say that such was the founder's goal. Thus I'm requesting citation. Unless you're just putting words in the guy's mouth.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

snoscythe wrote:

I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."



Roger Baldwin, 1928.

Thanks Sno, but are you sure ralph didn't say that?

nuk13 wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."



Roger Baldwin, 1928.

Thanks Sno, but are you sure ralph didn't say that?

Different sides of the same coin. The nice thing about all the "isms" (progressivism, collectivism, socialism, communism) is that they all pretty much want the same thing, just different channels of getting it.



Ultimately, it is about power, and creating a dumbed down populous that lives in fear and has no wants or ambitions or to even think for themselves.

You left out American Emperialism. Don't forget that one.

Imperialism doesn't need the "American" adjective.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Imperialism doesn't need the "American" adjective.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable qualifier. In Roman times it was Roman Emperialism.



Really though, what it IS, is British Emperialism continued. The same banks that owned Empirialist England own Emperialist America. They are the socialists you keep talking about. The big ones. The ones that really matter. Nater is nothing. These guys, these guys use our military like their own little handgun for their own socialist expansion throughout the world.



So yeah, British Emperialism it is. Thanks.

Agreed, what I was trying to say was that pretty much every "Imperialism" has been about power.

Thought this was one of the recently closed threads, so here is my explanation.

snoscythe wrote:

I'm going to have to call BS.



The ACLU was created to combat the efforts of the US government to enslave men and send them to the trenches in France during WWI. Woodrow Wilson was a far greater enemy of the people of the country than any German emperor and Roger Baldwin should be commended in his efforts to prevent Mr. Wilson in his attempt to rob the people of their liberty.



It was not the eforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country. Unfortunately the philosophical descendants of Mr. Wilson have replaced the idea of liberty in both political parties in this country.



My problem with the ACLU is that they do not believe the product of our liberty -- our property.

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."



Roger Baldwin, 1928.

That quote is kind of funny. He says he is for the abolition of the state and for socialism and communism which cannot be had without the state. I'm not saying Baldwin or the ACLU are right in every case. As I mentioned before the ACLU does not recognize property rights and so is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, most of those guys at the ACLU think rights are derived from civilization or the state, which is exactly opposite the truth. But then, there were recently posts about how we derive our right to property from the sovereign state, which I believe most of you supported so I guess you support the same philosophy as the ACLU.



I'll stand by this: the ACLU was initially formed to combat the draft and in that they were absolutely correct - sometimes an incorrect philosophy has some truth. It is better to build upon common (and true) beliefs than to simply say everything a man did is false/wrong/evil because one thing he said was wrong. So the ACLU has some truth and some falsehoods, just like everything else that comes of this world. In any event, I'll take an avowed socialist/communist over Woodrow Wilson any day - at least you know where they stand.

Just say: "I guess I was wrong." It's easier than typing yourself in circles.



(and people will actually respect you more for it)

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Just say: "I guess I was wrong." It's easier than typing yourself in circles.

Truth.

hawkwing wrote:

Just say: "I guess I was wrong." It's easier than typing yourself in circles.

Truth.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPjSvq5anhoqU5hjHWoj4u8LwTHNB82PwxdhN0b_zkz7YhKV8wdA" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



People, I was wrong.

Here is the full quote.



"At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits.

I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.

I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.

Communism is the goal." Roger Baldwin, 1935.



Obviously a large part of the quote is bunk but parts are dead on. It is also contradictory as individual rights are incompatible with socialism, but that is the general problem with believing rights are derived from government. And as you are in favor of government schools and government subsidized football you are clearly for socialism as well, so you and Roger Baldwin are in the same boat.



But Baldwin also ran all of the communists out of the ACLU in the 1940s so at least he recanted, how about you?



Again I'll say the ACLU was founded in opposition to the draft and they were correct in their opposition. Do you contend this point?



Finally, if my previous statement was insufficiently apologetic how's this: I said "It was not the efforts of Mr. Baldwin, but the efforts of Mr. Wilson that sought to destroy this country." So I was in error. I should have said both made efforts to destroy the country though President Wilson's were much more effective.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Oh yeah, and I'm not liking the idea of giving another income stream to our super out of control spending government (if these revenues didn't go back into the college, for college use, they would be taxable.) The government would use that money to then create more social entitlement programs, which would need more money, and which would give an absurdly controlling government more control of our lives.



Wait, who proposed this again? Nader? Naw, he wouldn't want governmental control of a free(-ish) market system... That's crazy talk. :roll: :whistle:

Since you are so into owning errors, how about yours? Here you want to give the money to the colleges, 85% of which are socialist institutions, rather than private individuals in an effort to prevent money from going to the government. At least my error was a factual one rather than an error in logic. Perhaps you should pay more attention to that Thomas Paine quote of yours.

JV, I'm not sure if you get this or not... The only college that I "support" or "follow" or whatever you will, is a private institution. I support no other public schools...



I don't want to give any money to ANY school, as I can put it to good use for my family. Unfortunately, that is not my choice (because my taxpayer dollars - removed from me at the point of a gun - go to help support public schools, and my tithing - donated by me, willfully and at my pleasure, partially subsidizes the income of students that attend there.)



I DON'T WANT TO GIVE ANY MONEY TO ANY COLLEGES. But the money that the colleges have, I would like to stay within the colleges, and not be an extra income stream for our radical-intrusionist government. Can I be clearer than that?



"At least my error was a factual one, rather than an error in logic." Wow. Dumbest quote of the year. Does anyone have the definition of "error" handy? Is it really that hard to admit you "called BS" on something without knowing all the facts, and got proven wrong? I pity you.



(Queue thread being locked in .... 3.....2.....1.....)

So the numbers are thus:

Current system: 100% of proceeds go to colleges. 85% of which are socialist organizations. Net proceeds to socialist organizations 85%.

System in which players get paid: ~50/50 revenue split similar to NFL and the average player is in the 30% tax bracket. Total amount government gets: 50% - operating costs 30%*50% << than the whole thing.

So your system gives more money to socialist institutions than the alternative which means you are for more socialism than less. I guess it is hard for someone to say they are wrong.



So you wanted me to say my BS comment was incorrect. Sorry to disappoint you but the BS part still stands. Even if you buy the quote from his college yearbook, Baldwin recanted and expelled all communists from the ACLU. The ACLU is socialist in its doctrine (which I pointed out in my very first post on the subject addressing their treatment of private property) but no more so than someone who thinks government schools should be able to use their tax advantaged status to destroy their competition and place price controls on payments to employees/athletes. So if imuakahuku wants to flame the ACLU for trying to destroy our country he better be willing to take his part of the blame when he supports socialist institutions like state funded and state owned college athletics.



I said I was wrong about the part of my post was incorrect, what more do you want? Personally, I think you are still just sore about my calling you out on objectivism. FYI I'm excited about Rand's movie coming out the 15th. Haven't found anywhere in Tucson to watch it yet though.

(I'm not sore, I promise. I really, honestly, truly, don't care what you think about me. I live my life according to my rules and standards, and don't expect anyone to understand those, or to alter their views. If you want to deal with me, then accepting that is part of the bargain.)



I'm just pointing out that when you directly call "BS" on something - and someone posts an exact quote proving the matter, directly - it is a lot easier to say "Oh, I didn't know that." or "I guess I was wrong." or "Wow. Good call." or "Good find." or a myriad of other ways to back down from the position; rather than spend a lot of time explaining "context", and how you were partially right. People will respect you a lot more (if that matters to you, it doesn't to me), but the bigger part of the equation is that admitting you are wrong to yourself can be a growing process. I have grown more in the last 3 years after admitting to myself I was wrong for the prior 20 . Did it hurt like hell? Absolutely. But I don't have to hurt any more.



Once again, I support no public school. I'm not sure how to make that more clear.



Back to the topic at hand, college football or the NCAA in respects to college football has little or no competition. And that isn't because the NCAA is a big bad organization that shuts down all competitors (I'm not defending the NCAA here, don't misunderstand me.) It is because no one has risen to be a direct competitor of college football. I don't know if you follow other sports, but a farm system exists for every other sport. The NBA has the D-league, and the European Leagues (and other countries). Brandon Jennings went overseas before playing one year of college, by choice. He wanted to get paid instead of go to school, and that is his choice. International basketball flourishes, even with the "big bad NCAA" forcing kids to get an education. You will see more and more kids (with talent, obviously) going overseas to play before declaring for the NBA, and that is their right and privilege.



MLB has a very deep farm system. I'm not sure if you know enough about it for me to go into it in depth or not.



The MLS, NHL, and all of the other PRO sports have farm systems of their own. The reason one doesn't exist for the NFL is because there isn't a need for it. IF there was a need, people would have already created one (and I am ALL for that. I have actually been thinking, lately, of starting one up as a private business.) One problem you have, is that the average NFL starter is normally 4-5 years older than his counterparts in other sports, because of the physical and mental toughness of the game. So the league would need to have players under contract for years at a time, not just a "one and done" type of scenario that other leagues have setup.



The NFL hasn't set this up, because it doesn't need to. College Football is fulfilling its unofficial role to the NFL, providing it with older players that have been playing the game for a few years. Players going into the NCAA, do so willfully, and upon written contract. (Have you ever read the contract? I suggest you do.)



If the NCAA and schooling don't fit the needs of prospective "future" NFLers, than they are welcome and available to choose other options. The only one really viable right now, is Arena Football (which is why I have been thinking of starting a semi-pro league for football lately. But not Arena football, which claims to be, and operates as Pro. In other words, an alternate to the NFL.) Do you think that 5 star players would be more interested in joining that and playing football fulltime (and getting paid, legitimately under contract) for a few years would be an option for them? Of course it would. But such an organization doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. Because NFL teams don't need to pay anyone for player development, and good players are still getting paid (in breach of contract) by the NCAA.



The NCAA is caught in a quandry right now. It should disband universities that fail to follow the non-pay, amateur rules. But in doing so, it will create a market, and a need for a semi-pro league (thereby creating "competition" for itself). The NCAA is a corrupt organization, that looks after it's own.



I choose to follow BYU, a private institution that I believe does not breach contract (in general - there have been cases of individuals doing this, and they have been turned in by BYU authorities).



I do not ever support the breaching of a contract that is willfully entered in by both parties. If enough "NFL hopeful" kids wanted to band together and form a few teams, or a league, I am all for that. I love competition in the marketplace.



I just don't think that teaching kids to breach contracts they enter into is a good thing, and it is one of the reasons we are speeding towards impending doom.

Even in the other sports state owned (and even private) colleges operate with a competitive advantage. Do you dispute this? As long as the colleges operate at an advantage they are artificially decreasing the amount of money players can make from other employers. Even minor league baseball players are paid less because there is competition from socialist colleges. Until the government granted competitive advantage is taken away, athletes are justified in recouping their loss on their own.

Really? Then why do people go into the farm systems, instead of playing college baseball? It's pretty clear that a Triple A, Double A, or even some Single A teams can beat any college team out there.



I actually played sports in high school (baseball included), I'm assuming that you didn't. Or else you would have had teammates working out for scouts, and - in my case, I know from experience - teammates getting drafted right out of high school and accepting 6 figure contracts to play minor league baseball. Those of us that didn't get drafted, were talking about what colleges would be best to go to for "exposure" purposes.



In the 2010 MLB Amatuer Draft 22 out of the first 50 picks were directly out of high schools. It is common knowledge that kids that want to play in the MLB (but aren't good enough to get drafted) go on to college to play. Almost nobody goes on to college passing up a contract (except of course, Jake Locker - who had an MLB contract for a farm team, but chose to attend college so he could, what? PLAY FOOTBALL AND TRY TO GO TO THE NFL! Now, if there was a farm system like there is for baseball, or some sort of semi-pro league, would he have needed to go to college?)





Your argument doesn't hold up.