surreal1272

Drew is right but you know full well what I'm talking about so there really is no reason to be coy about it.

Yet you got mad at me last week for not going after Olds on another thread while I criticized your post. How is that not also crying like a perpetual child? You have done the same thing when I criticize Ford but not GM (which is not true btw). Anyway, this has veered way off the subject and maybe needs a thread of its own.

I've said what I needed to say on it and this is taking the subject of the thread to far off course.

@hyperv6--Remember. You brought up capitalism as the reason for this country's early success while clearly ignoring or just dismissing how it got there, hence my initial reply to you. What is f@#ked in this country is when you ignore certain parts of history to suit an agenda as you have done here (with the support of others who have a selective memory of how this country was built).

See ya' No offense but it just seems like you are more concerned with being right and lording over everyone with your vast knowledge than actually listening to what others are saying.

Sorry but you are deflecting. "Was it right by today's standards"? That is irrelevant to the claim you made that this country survived off of capitalism for the first 150 years. My response was a factual counter because that "success" was built off the backs of the poor, the slaves, and a relentless pursuit of greed by people of power (see the history of the railroad for reference here). And way to insult the collective intelligence here with your first two sentences. Seems like you are the one who needs a clue here.

He did not say anything about your family being Puritans. You said this, "Not being doom and gloom here but my family came here in the 1600's to escape pusicution in Europe. They had to take care of them selves as no one else would. It made them tougher, smarter and self sufishiant." The 1600s were all about the Puritans hence Drew's response.

Getting down voted is one thing. However, as it has already been pointed out by the mods, when you go out of your way to troll someone or a subject without any contribution to the subject, then it becomes a problem. If you don't see a problem with that kind of trolling, then you are part of the problem (and no I am not talking about you ccap41, just in general). I also take issue with people who down vote the same posters, over and over, regardless of content. It has been proven tenfold here. I had two (not naming names) that went at me nonstop for a month last year with two downvotes a day. That is what leads me to where I am today regarding this. I think the upcoming changes will be a better fit here and cause far less headaches. What is interesting is the narcissistic way of which some people conduct themselves while accepting zero responsibility for their actions. I have taken my lumps and I have been forthright with the mods when there has been an issue with my actions. I know when I've messed up or gone too far. Others should learn to do the same. Thats is just my opinion and don't take it as a gospel truth.

No worries on my end. I got what you were saying. The issue has been dealt with and I'm fine with it.

Those folks are in a world of hurt right now. It's a shame to have all those resources and have a group of greedy a-holes completely destroy it.

Said the person who calls others "snowflakes" if they even hint at a liberal ideology. You lost before your first post when I triggered you to down vote a very valid and legitimate post, all because you feel I should have brought up all slavery (or mainly the Muslim owned slavery) when that was never the whole point. It was part of a very clearly laid out multi-faceted point . Your first post=trolling and deflection 101 Yet he tries to point out name calling while calling me "narrow minded". Irony 101. Notice also that he depicted to the name calling accusation and had no valid rebuttal to my post. Classic deflection when you know you are wrong.

Slavery is the side bar to the point of capitalisms early success. If you interpret that any other way then that is your problem. You also glossed over the displacement of natives and the use of child labor after the industrial revolution but hey, keep focusing on the one irrelevant point.

I see what you are saying but even that article points out that there would be no US without slavery. Again though, that was not my point (I also pointed out child and underpaid labor in my original post on the subject). It was that capitalism owes a lot of its early success here to very shady and immoral practices. Again, refer to the history of the American railroad as a guide here.

No we don't. It was to point out that we owe the first 150 years of our success to free labor moreso than capitalism itself. Good grief you are dense. I have no white guilt and this is not about slavery. Slavery is wrong no matter which society and race of people are involved. DUH!!! Get that through your dense skull already. My original point wasn't about slavery anyway in case you missed the obvious. It's about the U.S. owing a vast amount of its capitalist success over the first 150 years (which was brought up by hyper6 btw) to free and/or cheap labor. Guess you skimmed over the "Irish slave" part of my post too. White guilt? You are utterly clueless. Newsflash everyone. According to @FordCosworth, all slavery is wrong so to only point out white owned slavery is narrow minded even when that is not the damn point. Who would have imagined?

Talks about "narrow minds" but is convinced that muslims are the big problem in this world, so much so that he has to interject it into every non-car related discussion. Just wow. Again, whatever you have to tell yourself. You were the triggered one, with your immediate negative vote and talk of "narrow minds" which a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. There was no context to your post other than, "I don't care what was said about the U.S. And the first 150 years of capilist growth. I want to bring up how bad Muslim led nations were." That was your context, which again is unrelated to the prior discussion which has been pointed out by Drew as well but yet you were only triggered by my response. Interesting yet typical.

Did you look in the mirror when you said "narrow minds"? Again, it is not relevant to capitalism in the U.S. when you bring up a subject NOT RELATED to capitalism in the U.S. All you are trying to do is deflect because you were triggered by my post. Again, if you want to talk about Muslim slave holding nations, start a thread about it but it has jack $h! to do with what is being discussed here. BTW, Greece wasn't related to the subject either but it didn't stop you from bringing it up the first chance you got (a point you later denied making).

@FordCosworth--The lesson here is, context is your friend. Guess some people are easily triggered just by expressing a simple opinion.

Not applicable because none of those you mention are CAPITALIST societies. Did you forget that is what we were talking about about? Did you forget that the point of supporting capitalism was to illustrate how much better this country was than those Muslim societies you clearly dislike? Did that simple fact somehow slip that bigoted mind of yours? Your disdain for muslims aside (while excusing centuries of the same damn thing done by Christians), stick to the subject which was the pros and cons of capitalism vs socialism. I pointed out to hyper6 that the first 150 years of this country's capitalist success comes with huge caveats. It's simple history that apparently you don't get. You want to talk about all those other societies done in by Muslim rule? Start a thread about but that was not what was being talked about here. BTW, what is your trick for determining "white guilt" and a "condescending attitude"? Is it connected to the actual words being said or who said them. Seems like the latter to me. He only brings up other BS because who made the posts though Drew It really has nothing to do with the subject hence him trying to point out my "condescending attitude" and my "white guilt". For the record, I have no white guilt. That's just a term made up by flaky liberals and twisted by shortsighted conservatives who wouldn't know guilt if it slapped them upside the head with a brick. I simply understand the history better than him because I do not see it as a black and white issue where as he gets hung up on anything Muslim.

@hyperv6--You spoke of the 150 years of pure capitalism building this country prior to the New Deal. Does that include the same capitalism responsible for the railroad industry that ran rough shod accross this country, displacing Native Americans while being built by Chinese and Mexican slave labor? How about our vast agriculture that was made successful by African American slave labor? Or how about the budding industrial revolution which led to such fine labor practices such as child labor and Irish slave labor? I can go on if you'd like but I am curious as to which part of early American capitalism should we owe our "success"? This country was built by economic tyrants. We won't even get into you Puritan statements since Drew covered the bases there. f@#king puritans, a group so uptight that England said "get the f@#k out".

Well said but I don't know why the middle quote had me as who said it lol. I know who you were talking to though.

Shall I list the long list of side effects of capitalism? Shall I also point out the fallacy of continuing to equate you (and your family's) experience with the other 330 million people in this country as the be all, end all of pointing out the superiority of capitalism? For the record, this is the black and white line of thinking I am talking about and honestly it is not even worth any more of my time to discuss it with people who continue to see that way, no matter what they are told. I will say this. I love how you think people can only build a successful business in a purely capitalist environment. Guess all those successful businesspeople in Europe are just pathetic loserrs who don't know anything about hard work because they happen to live in a socialist country.

That's the gray area I was speaking of but too many folks think it is a matter of simple black and white. It isn't and has never been that simple.

There is nothing personal. Just nothing the views being espoused by certain posters, escpecially ones who seem incapable of seeing any gray area in the subject. Nothing less, nothing more. If you interpreted that as me taking it personal, then you are wrong.

All I know is that there sure are some sensitive and rather sanctimonious folks here in regards to any criticism of capitalism while they can seemingly dish it out freely towards anything not related to capitalism. Simply astounding.