Do conservatives believe in Income Inequality? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14636596
Driee,

I want to know why I can't go to a univesity and get me some of that 'equality' ? I'd sure have a better speech that fool. I could even attemp to un-indoctrinate most of the fools kids that pay for these hacks.

Like this warmonger laughing vampire who tells them to give her a quarter of a million to tell them lies and half truths at best. I want half of her pay and half of all the paupers who went into politics basically poor and now are multi millionaires.

Mike Savage was right' Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder'.

Wheres all the help for the poor in Africa? Don't these athelets have billions of dollars between them? How about some black movie stars who flame the racial wars with their free plaforms? How much do they do for their slave relatives?

Only ones I see in Africa are a bunch of white christian churches buying back the slaves from the same slavers the world bought from 600 years ago. Islamic invaders I think set up by roman catholic Jesuits.
#14636647
MEAGAIN wrote:Driee,

I want to know why I can't go to a univesity and get me some of that 'equality' ? I'd sure have a better speech that fool. I could even attemp to un-indoctrinate most of the fools kids that pay for these hacks.

Like this warmonger laughing vampire who tells them to give her a quarter of a million to tell them lies and half truths at best. I want half of her pay and half of all the paupers who went into politics basically poor and now are multi millionaires.

Mike Savage was right' Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder'.

Wheres all the help for the poor in Africa? Don't these athelets have billions of dollars between them? How about some black movie stars who flame the racial wars with their free plaforms? How much do they do for their slave relatives?

Only ones I see in Africa are a bunch of white christian churches buying back the slaves from the same slavers the world bought from 600 years ago. Islamic invaders I think set up by roman catholic Jesuits.


MEAGAIN, please consider having a friend edit your posts for clarity. We can hardly respond if we don't have a clue what you are saying.
#14636745
Quet,

Explain what it is you don't understand. I'll try to be more clear. Or maybe less 'angry'? Its been a bad month for kids who have to deal with this new age crap. I just went to a funeral of a 19 yo who hung himslef in a tree in public park. Have too many young lost in drugs and not much to hang onto these days, no real relationships just one sex affair after another.

I have 11 grandkids and 5 great grands and worry about their futures. Don't even think you know how that is unless your a parent or grand parent.

I'm not good at typing and besies that my puter has a problem mixing up letters and scrablling words around.
#14636754
No more excuses for those who stay behind anymore. There have had special benefits for years and all its done is made some more behind.

Many people more quailified for certain positions were denied because of stupid quotas. This is wrong.

You want equaility, then go out and get you some quality. Its racist to take from one more deserving and give it to one less so. You should get what you have EARNED,not what some special interest group says you 'deserve'.

If you can't feed your kids then you shouldn't have them. It should be against the law like any other form of child abuse. We need farms for unwed mothers and jails for the men who knock em up. Not bigger paychecks and free shelter.
#14636775
What I find is most progressives are rebellious as long as it doesn't cost them personally.

An example is Bill Maher, he was all for Obama and his taxes until they started taking too big a chunk out of his salary,
then it was "Liberals you might lose me."

Or how many are for massive welfare programs, yet they let their next door neighbors starve?

Warren Buffet got up a few years ago and stumping for higher taxes said: "The rich should pay their fair share." Yet when tax time rolled around he took every deduction he could.

Even with so-called wage inequality, if progressives feel wages are unequal, let them show solidarity with those making less by cutting their (progressives) salaries. Then at least they'd be doing something.
#14636786
Even with so-called wage inequality, if progressives feel wages are unequal, let them show solidarity with those making less by cutting their (progressives) salaries. Then at least they'd be doing something.


Good Lord man. Do you realized that you just admitted that wages are unequal and that you think something should be done about it. How about this solution....

If progressives AND those earning low wages feel wages are unequal why don't they learn from conservatives and vote people into office who will fix this problem. How about that So_crates? That is what the wealthy do. They donate vast sums of money to political candidates who vote in laws that keep wages and taxes low while cutting services to the poor. Isn't that what you meant to say? Or are you a fake conservative. One who does not believe in universal suffrage? Are you one of those fake conservatives who does not believe in our political system? One of those fake conservatives who does not believe that we should have a representative form of government?

Sure are a lot of fake conservatives, aren't there So_crates? But you aren't one, are you?
#14636833
Income inequality has been shrinking on the individual level but household based income inequality gets worse. And this has a lot to do with the "marriage gap" since if you compare one person's income with two people's income, it will obviously look like a dramatic difference even when individual incomes are coming closer together.

This is of course a favorite proxy argument for deconstructionists of all types because nothing matters to them more than money.
#14636844
Drlee wrote:Good Lord man. Do you realized that you just admitted that wages are unequal and that you think something should be done about it. How about this solution....

If progressives AND those earning low wages feel wages are unequal why don't they learn from conservatives and vote people into office who will fix this problem. How about that So_crates? That is what the wealthy do. They donate vast sums of money to political candidates who vote in laws that keep wages and taxes low while cutting services to the poor. Isn't that what you meant to say? Or are you a fake conservative. One who does not believe in universal suffrage? Are you one of those fake conservatives who does not believe in our political system? One of those fake conservatives who does not believe that we should have a representative form of government?

Sure are a lot of fake conservatives, aren't there So_crates? But you aren't one, are you?


Good Lord, Doc, your obviously not reading what's written on the page.

That or you obviously trying the progressive trick of misdirecting. Don't look at how the complainers should be acting in solidarity with the people the claim are making lower wages, look at the false accusations I'm going to make.

English donates that words like "so-called" and "if they" refers to the subject's, which is progressive thoughts.

Even if "so-called wasn't there, that isn't an admission of existence, i.e, If there are unicorns, they should be in zoos.

Am I a false conservative. There's one fatal flaw in your theory: I never claimed to be a conservative.

Are there false conservatives? Of course there are. Some conservatives are progressives, which are really liberals claiming to be conservatives (I believe Hillary was one of the first to do the progressive-liberal-progressive cha cha).
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first; George Bush was another.

How do you tell a real conservative from a false conservative? The test: Do they want more or less government?

Since we're playing verbal tennis, your not a false conservative are you, Doc?
#14636880
Now you have me confused so_crates.

By your definition Reagan is a liberal (increased the federal civilian workforce by a quarter of a million people) and Clinton was a conservative (cut it by 350,000).

No son. Your definition of a conservative is dead wrong.

Maybe cutting taxes is it. Right? Well. Reagan was the author of the largest tax increase in US history and Barry Goldwater (you are too young to remember him but he ran for president and wrote a book called "The Conscious of a Conservative" called for a top federal tax rate of 52%. President Obama does not want that.

Perhaps those who shrunk government in size are the real conservatives. Well that would be Truman, Clinton and Obama.

I'll tell you what you just did. You sure proved to us that Fox News and the Republican party are idiots. They have the conservatives all wrong. You must be very smart.

Why don't you call them and let them in on the secret.
#14636887
I notice you used the old progressive tactic of giving half truths, then post nothing to back up your claim.

Also, I noticed you focused on one segment of government, workforce.

I said shrunk or increase government, not shrunk or increase the government workforce.

Hence, to help clear up you confusion:

Reagan increased government, where?

Being a conservative as you claim I'm sure you'll accept Reagan's son's article in Newsmax.

Reagan's increases were in welfare, I guess its really progressives that want widows and orphans eating Gravy Train while they wolf down their surf and turf with pink Chablis,and the other increase was education, or would the left prefer all those teachers get laid off?

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/652671

I'm sure Slick Willy would like to take credit for shrinking the government, but it was really the Repubs in congress as this CATO institute article explains.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... nce-budget
#14636921
Reagan's son on Newsmax and the CATO institute.....

You would never resort to choosing rank partisan sources, would you?

Exactly how did Reagan shrink government? You tell me and back it with a credible source.

But you accused me of focusing on one thing. I did not.

Reagan grew the deficit. Tripled it as a matter of fact. Raised taxes and hired a quarter of a million new government workers. (325,000 if you count the military.) Which of those three things are conservative values?

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of using "progressive tactics". I am a conservative republican and have been since before you were born I imagine. Further to support your claims you use an article from Newsmax entitled, "Leftist Spin Used to Attack Reagan Rather Than Fault Obama". Nice objective piece. I especially liked the link on the page to how Susan Sommers is exposing doctors who are secretly curing cancer.

You might be surprised to learn that during the Reagan administration there were a great many conservatives like myself who were furious at his spending like a drunken sailor and hiking taxes to boot.

Love the CATO institute; an unabashedly partisan group. The first two articles on their website right now are attack pieces against President Obama.

There was once a time when conservatives were proud of their scholarship. Not they positively run from any scholarship.
#14637036
Once again you fall back on the progressive tactic of focusing on a small portion of something and ignoring all the other aspects of it, except what proves your claim.

This is like saying, 15% of all automobile accidents are caused by drunken driving. 15%! Then that means 85% is caused by drivers that are sober. So maybe the sober drives should get off the road and let the drunks have it.

Did government grow or shrink? Government is a lot more than workforce and deficits, its policies and regulations and a million little things that chip away at our freedom daily. I guess a simpler way of looking at the grow or shrink question would be, do we have more or less liberty, more or less freedom?

Scholarship? I think that ship has sailed. The bon voyage party was when liberals took over the schools and started post-modernism. Then scholarship left and politics became the main subject of most courses. I can tell you, I really enjoyed taking an English Lit course and getting a 12-week soap box lecture on the political flavor of the moment.

For most, with politics come loss of objectivity; with loss of objectivity comes loss of scholarship.

Speaking of scholarship and the lack thereof, credible sources? My sources were just as credible as the progressive rag source, The New Republic, you posted. But then that's not a rank partisan source, right? (Where's that sarcastic smiley?)
#14637056
Pants-of-dog wrote:Simply donating to the poor does not address the root causes of poverty.

In fact, it doesn't even help them, because their landlords just take it all in increased rents. That's why all the trillions we have given the poor have not helped them out of poverty: their landlords just took every penny.
Part of that is using the power of the state to regulate, reduce, or abolish those practice's that lead to poverty.

As explained above, no matter what you do, nothing can possibly help until you solve the land problem. Everything you think you are doing, or claim to be doing, for the poor, helps no one but their landlords. That's why minimum wages haven't helped, and the proposed minimum wage increase is nothing but a red herring: landowners own all the opportunities to earn wages at specific locations, so any increase in wages will simply be taken by landowners in increased residential land rents.
#14637061
This is like saying, 15% of all automobile accidents are caused by drunken driving. 15%! Then that means 85% is caused by drivers that are sober. So maybe the sober drives should get off the road and let the drunks have it.


A completely idiotic statement.


Scholarship? I think that ship has sailed. The bon voyage party was when liberals took over the schools and started post-modernism. Then scholarship left and politics became the main subject of most courses. I can tell you, I really enjoyed taking an English Lit course and getting a 12-week soap box lecture on the political flavor of the moment.


Another idiotic statement. And you should have complained. If you have the balls.

Speaking of scholarship and the lack thereof, credible sources? My sources were just as credible as the progressive rag source, The New Republic, you posted. But then that's not a rank partisan source, right? (Where's that sarcastic smiley?)


And, no surprise, you did not read the article. If you had you would realize that the article was a piece in a liberal publication agreeing with one published in perhaps the most conservative source around. But you chose to comment without reading the article. Perhaps you paid attention like that in your comp 101 class.
#14637078
Another progressive tactic, ad hominem arguments. You can always tell when your presenting a winning argument, progressive start attacking you (by tagging the statement as stupid or idiotic. Which without telling why it's stupid or idiotic is next to saying nothing at all), instead of the argument presented. Not very scholarly of you.

Put simply, calling a statement idiotic is not a logical argument.

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed it was English Lit and not Comp 101.

Another progressive tactic, they start paying attention to typos, grammar, and composition errors, rather than content (as in logical arguments presented). It's a way of diverting from the fact they have no rebuttal.

Again, put simply, critiquing my composition is not a logical argument.

(pointing over Doc's head)
Look, Doc, there goes the point.

Your response to me calling you on using a partisan rag yourself is a Strawman argument, nobody questioned whether or not it agreed with anything. At issue is that it is just as partisan as what I presented you. Yet you accept one partisan publication and rejected the other. Also not very scholarly as it's not being intellectually honest.
#14637127
You want a more developed argument?

Scholarship? I think that ship has sailed. The bon voyage party was when liberals took over the schools and started post-modernism.


Well let's start with the fact that you do not understand the term "postmodernism" . That is clear as a bell. I need not explain that to my fellow POFOers.

So now you are calling me "progressive" rather than liberal. Thanks. I'll take that as a complement. Though I am a conservative, and most here know it, I take it as a complement because you obviously do not understand the origins of American conservatism either.

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed it was English Lit and not Comp 101.


Whatever.

Put simply, calling a statement idiotic is not a logical argument.


Correct. In this case it is a simple observation of a fact.

(pointing over Doc's head)
Look, Doc, there goes the point.



Oh. You think I missed your point. Let me restate my response to it...

A completely idiotic statement.


Your response to me calling you on using a partisan rag yourself is a Strawman argument, nobody questioned whether or not it agreed with anything
.

Because your observation was just stupid. If you believe that the two publications I mentioned render their opinions invalid, say so. I was happy to cast suspicion on your two partisan sources. But you will have a problem. You said:

Yet you accept one partisan publication and rejected the other.


Maybe you will read the article I referenced before you make a bigger fool out of yourself. You see I quoted two respected publications both making the same point. One conservative source and one progressive. That is the kind of "fair and balanced" that you Fox News types hate. You see son, smart people read a variety of sources and form their opinion from them.

Though I am a conservative I have to grudgingly admit that these days progressives seem far more likely to be well informed and have the delightful habit of being just as hard on their fellow progressives as they are on conservatives.
#14637130
You say your going to give a more developed argument, then you don't. Just a lot of bluster and repetition, yet no rational argument.

I'm making a fool out of myself? I'm not avoiding presenting a rational argument, and offering only bluster and repetition. Which are also progressive tactics.

Don't have to explain to your fellow POFOers. Why because you can't? Or are you afraid they'd realize your the one not understanding the term post-modernism.

I mean, after all, you don't seem to mind reiterating what was in the New Nation article (which I'm sure your fellow POFOers have already read, or did they?), so why should this be an exception.

Progressives harder on other progressives? Maybe to get them into lockstep, other than that I doubt it. Otherwise they'd think their premises through. The lack of thought becomes obvious when they use Alinsky tactics rather than presenting logical arguments for feeling the way they do.

You apparently don't understand the terms strawnan argument or intellectual honesty, either. If you did you'd see where your straw man argument went off the rails and careened from intellectual honesty.

Perhaps if you worked less on insults and more on reasoning you'd make more headway.

But then when there is no rational rebuttal all that's left is insults.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
The importance of out-breeding

DOG BREEDING https://external-content.[…]

So @skinster will indeed on watching rape videos[…]

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]