dbl post
yes
yes
they don’t take care of themselves, the working class does. keep calling me jelous. it’s a great argument.
and you said that coorporations care…
this doesn;t make sense. we are cutting into the profit margins of the supper rich.
the government is supposed to represent everyone. you’re crazy.
yet they don;t get that. big suprise.
and you are suprisingly deluded.
50% of the countries wealth could be used to help the bottom 99.5%, but you think socialism won;t work. you call me jeous.
when did i say that? i’m saying that rich people don;t like giving money away. is that not true?
i am moving to china very soon. at least there people aren’t deluded religious patriots repeating every stupid thing ther hear their greasy politicians say. i believe in equality. you believe in hating those who disagre with you. i argue that the rich people don;t need the amount of wealththey have. i say the hungry people in this nation could sue some food that the rich people can afford. but oh, i must be jelous.
so that they can charge you for it. ehealth care is big business.
yet poor people cannot afford health care. gee, io guess there’s not enough charity.
why should i donate one fourth of the nothing that i have so that someone who has everything can keep it that way? why don;t we make the people who ahve so much wealth they cannot possibly spend it all make some donations?
lest we impose on our wonderful slavers. yessum massa,
coorporations wont be able to make stupidly high prices because if they do, some other coorporation will sell the same things for a smaller price and get all the business. taxing them will do nothing but cut into their profit margins
that’s a ridiculous lie.
aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
or it just gets pocketed. either or.
no, we’re making more innovations and giving money to the poor.
forcing companies to pay more mopney will increase innovation. stop using that ridiculous argument. giving companies money for innovations is retarded. do you think the lower class should stay poor so that the glorious coorporations can come up with a good way to take care of us all?
THEY DON"T GIVE A FLYING FUCK
keep calling me jelous. it really does well in adressing my arguments
So you honestly don’t see why what you’re trying to say is stupid?
These two statements, butting the rational and the irrational as they do, are just as mysterious and frustrating to me as the leftists who wrongly promote socialism but rightly work to expose religion. My wife is a Christian, my brother is a fundamentalist, and I dearly love them both, but they are indeed irrational when they claim knowledge (not even just beliefs) based on faith in a revealed religion–religion revealed by fallible, corruptible man. Is there wisdom there, yes, but the only way to believe in the irrational supernatural events they attach their authority to is through blind (unfounded) faith.
God, if He exists, could not be an interactive God and we still have free will. He therefore must follow His own Prime Directive to remain hands off at least since the Creation.
right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder.
socialism is wrong to the rockerfellers and christianity in the government is right to the faithful.
just out of curiosity, what about promoting socialism is “wrong”?
am i just jelous, as phil would suggest?
Not in the interactions of humans with each other. The only alternative to a standard, reasoned morality governing our interactions (since we can’t each dictate our druthers to others) is anarchism/chaos.
It is anti-individual which is only promotable by capitalism; although I’ll add the disclaimer that some socialism (gag) is necessarily (arguably) employed as a small part of government.
your reasoned morality that a trillion dollar war is more important than food for a starving poor child isn;t the same reasoning the child would use. (not to incinuate anything)
and you think the “anti-individual” is a good thing? what about the starving child? what and how does he think?
Wonderer wrote… “the masses dictate the laws. when the masses were christian we had christian laws. remember?”
Hmmmm Christian perspective of morality. Well I’m so glad we got rid of that. Because liberalism does support the ancient greek man boy love relationships. Those snazzy greeks did find a way to make it work… And sex with minors… well maybe sex ed should teach kids to be able to have sex with adults. And having children,… well even if postpardum depression could be from 9 months of antisipation followed by killing your own blood (people often talk about the pain of killing in the line of duty) Or even 9 months of antisipation followed by a suddun realization of ? . What ever it is,… Science has deemed it as a fuck up of nature. Like God fucked up, not some all mighty scientist. And not real pain from physical actions. Thus abortion is told to us to be acceptable by the all mighty hand of science. No brainwashing there though.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Whats even scarrier then post pardum depression from killing your own blood… Being caloused enough to not get depressed.
Children are such a curse.
Phil did you just say children are a curse? I thought you were one of the fundamentalist xtians on the board. I may not be up to speed on how those types think, but it doesn’t seem like them to think that children are a curse. Crazy man…whoooooaaaaaaa…
you’re bringing the spartans into this? comon now… i hope this has a point…
i’m not supporting or attacking anything exceptwhatever it is you said when you wrote the original post.
for example
Firstly, nobody is proposing to tax oil companies out of business, and even if we did tax them to the limit, you say that the would then be unable to get new technology and patents… (ridiculous)
then you go incinuating all kinds of garbage calling people uneducated and paranoid, when it is in fact you who have made ridiculously uneducated claims, and lashed out at the democrats.
out of paranoia perhaps? the irony is too sweet…
another example
this is basically just an incoherent rant and needs no response.
and finally
What’s actually clear is that YOUR beliefs of hatred cloud YOUR brainwashed mind.
the icing on the cake.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at, but even the best system we can come up with will not be perfect.
Let me clarify: It (socialism) is anti-individual. Individualism is only promotable through capitalism and the individual freedom it provides.
so why deny striving for perfection?
i think you’re thinking too much in terms of nazi communism. they wern’t socialists.
it would still be a democracy with protected rights. why do you think socialism means opression and depression?
I’m the one hawking Truth knowing the pursuit will never be complete. All we can do is use the best we have unless somebody comes along with something better. I’m certain socialism isn’t, in fact it came into being pretty much as a reaction to capitalism because it’s so easy to demagogue with class warfare.
NAZIs weren’t communist but they were socialists. The government controlled business which is Fascism, one of several types of socialism including communism. After all NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US is on the brink of being a fascist state thanks to the Democrats as well as the Republicans and the boobs that sell their votes to them for government programs.
Since the 1930’s when Social Security and the War on Drugs were initiated without a constitutional amendment, Washington has slowly continued to undermine the Constitution. Now we are rapidly approaching fascist control of business. Put 2 & 2 together. It won’t mean a dictatorship necessarily, just a ruling elite with an established legal double standard. Remember hearing we can’t drag down the office of the President by airing out his dirty laundry, or words to that effect. It started with Nixon. In fact it’s just the opposite, we should prosecute any unlawful President in order to protect the office, the rule of law, the Constitution.
As for this being a democracy, too many have sold their votes, are apathetic/ignorant/indoctrinated by government education and don’t value integrity. It’s why I don’t believe in universal suffrage.
There are many parallels between our government situation and what religion used to be not so long ago. Both are dependent on irrational blind faith.
Your conception of socialism has been skewed by the typical idea behind the Nazi. The Nazi’s labeling as fascist has far more to do with the post-Mussolini era in which they attempted to quell “immoral behavior, and raise up the former grandeur which was lost” i.e. Rome for Italy and 1880 Germany with the Kaiser. The reason people believe that the Nazi’s were true socialist is because they had high ranking members who were in positions to tell the Fuhrer “Hey, Johann is my competitor, let’s kill him”. Remember fascism is not socialism as my professor preached. In fact, they HATED Communists. Many people believe the reason Hitler decided to invade Russia anyways was because how much they hated the idea of Communism.
As far as the US being Fascist I would only attribute that to people who say “Reagan was great we should go back to those days”. Cause Fascism, not being socialist by nature, simply wishes to be modern but regain the former glory (at least supposed glory).
By and by we should be far more worried about the votes that are bought from our representatives by big business than those of government programs. The transition to non-regulated economy is far less distant than that of a true socialist government.
Just 60ish years prior to the Depression there was one president who decided to undermine the BoR by making those black people free. Tyrants. Seriously. The War on Drugs is silly in itself that I will grant you. Now, Social Security, it is a good idea while not practical. In a country where people discard the old cause it is not cost effective is not a sign of any form of socialism. In fact, I contend that free market creates amorality. The only way to contend or be more successful than another is to be willing to cut that cost or push that person down in order to ascend. But, you may be ok with that and that is fine. I am not here to judge but simply to point out the potential flaws of said system.
I myself am not a believer in total socialism but I do feel certain rights people have can only be enforced
by a larger power. Without these standards our government establishes many of our homes would be unsafe, crime would be far more prevalent and civil liberties would be a punchline of a joke.
Generally speaking, the poor are poor because over time, they’ve shown an inability to manage and generate wealth. On the other hand, the rich are rich because they’ve shown the ability to manage and generate wealth. Again those are sweeping generalizations with many exceptions, but when discussing the large-scale economy, such sweeping generalizations are warranted and appropriate.
That being said, to remove wealth from the hands of those who have shown the ability to manage it, and put it in the hands of those who’ve shown an inability to manage it can only be damaging toward the large-scale economy.
However, when money flows from the rich to the poor, education in wealth management flows with it. In other words, the poor get practice in wealth management (not to mention better formal education opportunities) because they now have something to practice with. The long-term effect is that more people become “money wise,” the economy gains more big-time players, and grows as a result. Giving money to the poor is too often seen as some kind of charity or good-will, which demonizes those that oppose it. That isn’t the case. Giving money to the poor should be seen as an investment, meaning like any other investment, the amount given should be weighed versus the potential return.
Like all things in life, a dynamic balance has to be struck. That people (Republicans and Democrats) take one side of the argument every time and in every situation only shows their ignorance. I happen to think at the moment the poor should be more empowered, but that’s to be expected after 8 years of a Republican president. It’s certainly not always the case.
might i make a few sweeping generalisation of their own?
the extremely wealthy are not independantly wealthy because they have the ability to generate wealth, but that they have the ability to manage the poor in such a way that money is generated. The sutiation is directly comparable to an aristocracy, in this case we have been slowly manipulated and cheated by those clever enough and as it is the rich have pulled away from teh reality of the poor and we now exist in an unchangeble aristocat like society where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
How can you attribute and justify somebodys poverty and opression with the argument that they have simply failed.
The ability of the poor is not in question. In being poor they are discouraged from actually making money, kept unhealthy with expensive healthcare, and even kept stupid with underfunded publix schools.
In order to go to college a poor person would either have to be exceptionally smart or a skilled thief.
In terms of sweeping generalisations, our society is pathetic.
while you make this moot rationalisation disconcerned with everything except the large scale success of a society have you even stopped the think of the rights of the poor? The only reason they should be shown “charity” (i would settle for fair chance) is because we can use them to strengthen our economy?
i agree that investing in the poor woulf help to make them productive and self-sufficient, but the fact that you see our society as a bunch of money and commodity manipulators is somewhat disturbing.
The poor are treated like a commodity. You’re proposing nothing more than developping the poor into well oiled robots.
Is it fair that the rich get the best of everything?
The poor don;t need empowermen, they need equal treatment.
It’s not their inability that has made them poor. most poor people are born that way.