MEAGAIN wrote: Have you ever considered why Switzerland,Norway,etc are able to be socialist nations?
No, because they aren't.
It is because of the once strong Republic of America gave them protection from invasions and wars. Without America all these natiosn would have been in the dust bins of history from invasions of their neighbors. Protection of strong capitalistic nation is why they were successful.
Nonsense. Switzerland had already been neutral and successful for centuries before the USA even existed. And Norway wasn't protected much by the USA when Germany invaded it, were they?
Europe and especailly scandinavia are now full of violence and crime.
Yes, but nothing like they were before they became modern secular democracies.
People in their streets threatening the mostly white nationals with death and idol worship. First time in history even cops won't go into many of their hoods.
False. Until a few hundred years ago, most of those countries didn't even
have police forces in most areas.
Now that Americsa has been invaded and taken over by comnmunist rich liberals
Now those I would like to see....
the free world is under barbaric invasions and on a suicide mission.
But not in the way you imagine.
I haven't voted for almost 2 decades imo all of them are warmongering elitist. I'm not a memebr of any organized religion and don't go to any church so I'm anti religious and anti political dictator. I only entertain myself with debate I'm too old to care and too frustrated to let it get to me. So I just vent and play this game of who is quilty when all of us are.
It's not too late to find the path of liberty, justice and truth. Just find a willingness to know the facts that prove your most cherished beliefs are false and evil.
Hong Wu wrote:
Very interesting. However, the flatlined Gini for individuals since 1960 is somewhat deceptive because of the changing age distribution. There were a lot more children in 1960, so of course inequality of persons was much greater. It rose sharply during the 1946-61 baby boom for the same reason. So the flat Gini since 1960, during a time when the age distribution was becoming narrower, indicates increased inequality among persons, too, if the data are adjusted to account for the aging of the population.
Drlee wrote:The idiotic comments about giving away money are great examples of why I am ashamed of those who call themselves conservatives. When did it happen that conservative came to mean stupid?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -- John Stuart Mill
The same conservatives do not believe in privacy, the balanced budget, fair and free elections and equality under the law. They are simply dullards who think it is cool to be conservative. Oh but to have the conservative label mean something again. At least something other than dumbass racist cracker.
"Liberal" and "conservative" labels have always been too pliable to be of much use in intelligent discourse. I avoid them entirely for that reason. "Right" (i.e., elitist) and "left" (egalitarian) are much more meaningful.
EU rope wrote:Nothing wrong with income inequality. However, inequality in rights (privileges) is a problem. It is as simple as that.
Well! And here I thought I was going to be the only one in the thread capable of knowing the difference between income inequality resulting from inequality of contribution, which everyone but the occasional fool supports, and income inequality resulting from inequality of rights, which is what right-wing "conservatives" support. Kudos, EU rope!
MEAGAIN wrote: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.
What special benefits would those be? You mean the additional rent their landlords charge them every time they get anything from public or private charity? Every time anything is given to the landless, their landlords just take it all. That is why trillions in welfare spending has not helped the poor one bit, but has made their landlords trillions richer.
Many people more quailified for certain positions were denied because of stupid quotas. This is wrong.
If only that wrong were not insignificant compared to the wrongs it is intended to countervail...
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.
If only you meant, "Its racist to take from those who are landless because of race-based slavery, a history of racist laws, and oppression by racists, but who contribute more by their labor, and give it to those who, because they are of the land-stealing race, own the land."
You should get what you have EARNED,not what some special interest group says you 'deserve'.
You mean like working poor people should get to keep what they have earned, and not have half of it stolen and given to rich, greedy, privilege parasites because some special interest group says private landowners "deserve" to pocket the land value other people's taxes creates?
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's not what you mean, is it?
If you can't feed your kids then you shouldn't have them.
What if you
could feed them, if only you weren't being forcibly deprived of your liberty and the fruits of your labor for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites?
It should be against the law like any other form of child abuse.
But the landowner thieving that deprives people of the
opportunity to support their families unless they pay off a rich, greedy, privileged extortionist should be
enforced by law...?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
We need farms for unwed mothers and jails for the men who knock em up.
What an eloquent confession of evil.
Not bigger paychecks and free shelter.
How about the right to liberty that has been forcibly removed...?
Naaaaahhhh...
so_crates wrote:What I find is most progressives are rebellious as long as it doesn't cost them personally.
While right-wing apologists for privilege are all for liberty and justice 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?
There are many on the left who do not understand the futility of welfare -- and many on the right who pretend it is for the benefit of the recipients, and not exclusively for the benefit of their landlords.
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.
He was saying the rules were not fair, not that the rules should be different for him than for other rich people.
Funny how apologists for privilege can't -- or won't -- get their heads around something so simple.
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.
"You think slavery is so bad? Well, go out and get a job, save up your money, buy some slaves, and free them! Problem solved!"