Joe Biden: polls of approval and favorability

[Classic-Xer]

(02-02-2021, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: Saying 'up' is 'down' doesn't make it so.

Saying 'down' is 'up' doesn't make it so either.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-02-2021, 03:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: Lol



- Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal

Do you think he would have still signed if he would have been shown the outcome ( The 08' financial collapse) in advance? He's a opportunistic Democrat, I think he would have signed it anyway.

[Einzige]

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

(02-03-2021, 01:35 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: Lol



- Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal

Do you think he would have still signed if he would have been shown the outcome ( The 08' financial collapse) in advance? He's a opportunistic Democrat, I think he would have signed it anyway.

Yes, because Democrats and Republicans are committed to the continued rule of capitalists.

[pbrower2a]

(02-03-2021, 01:40 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

(02-03-2021, 01:35 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: Lol



- Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal

Do you think he would have still signed if he would have been shown the outcome ( The 08' financial collapse) in advance? He's a opportunistic Democrat, I think he would have signed it anyway.

Yes, because Democrats and Republicans are committed to the continued rule of capitalists.

More significantly, Clinton could have never predicted that the disappearance of competition and regulation in the financial sector would have led to financial shenanigans that would make the real estate frauds of the Double-Zero Decade and the Panic of 2008 a near certainty... except if he knew about the generational theory. 

Capitalists are at their worst not so much when they are cruel, but instead when they are reckless. 

Blunders must first seduce. Retail banking, investment banking, and insurance must be separated due to the conflicts of interests that arise from any sharing of activity. For good reason we separate medicine, pharmacy, and undertaking even though they share end-of-life concerns.  Maybe to be precise one does not want physicians profiting from the sale of medicines or dealing in funeral services, pharmacists doing medicine or dealing in the mortuary business, or morticians dealing with issues of health of the people not under their care as cadavers or ashes.

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

Classic's first two sentences win the prize for astonishment. He forgets that trickle-down doesn't trickle. It does not create wealth except for a few. The trickle-up economy, the regulated and taxed mixed economy, is what creates wealth. We all benefit, and if we had this economy, many people of all Parties would have nice homes. Trickle-down economics is a policy, not an inventory. 

Your Party wants to reserve nice homes for a privileged few. Some Democrats today are wealthy and benefit from trickle-down economics, but they realize that their wealth is endangered by an economy that is narrowly-based, and in which many are poor. And they realize that life is less valuable too, if its riches of all kinds are restricted to a few armed people in gated communities, which is what YOU want.

[pbrower2a]

(02-03-2021, 01:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

Classic's first two sentences win the prize for astonishment. He forgets that trickle-down doesn't trickle. It does not create wealth except for a few. The trickle-up economy, the regulated and taxed mixed economy, is what creates wealth. We all benefit, and if we had this economy, many people of all Parties would have nice homes. Trickle-down economics is a policy, not an inventory.

Even worse with trickle-down economics, the creation of wealth that few can own does not create greater wealth. Overall prosperity depends upon people making transactions that create happiness. The wealth that the super-rich get ends up as tangible objects like real estate or ends up bidding up the cost of super-desirable art and antiques. If people are prosperous enough, then they can make not-so-rational decisions (like buying more car or better consumer goodies than one really needs) that causes prosperity for more people in a cycle of purchasing and production. Economic policies that enrich the Master Class and nobody else lead to panics and depressions because they do not create more economic activity.    

Quote:Your Party wants to reserve nice homes for a privileged few. Some Democrats today are wealthy and benefit from trickle-down economics, but they realize that their wealth is endangered by an economy that is narrowly-based, and in which many are poor. And they realize that life is less valuable too, if its riches of all kinds are restricted to a few armed people in gated communities, which is what YOU want.

Of course! All economic orders, ours included, have people who would succeed economically under any system -- like cops, senior military officers, high-level academics and researchers, barristers, physicians, architects, engineers, accountants, entertainers...  the trick for economic success is to make possible delight for others who might be more successful in some systems than others. If you want the true measure of prosperity in a society, then compare people with similar occupations such as barbers, bakers, and schoolteachers who do much the same functions in Saint Petersburg, Florida and Saint Petersburg, Russia.

[mamabug]

(02-02-2021, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote: The real problem with radicals on the left: they aren't really organized.  Groups like BLM are real organizations, but they are political and not a threat.  Antifa is only a concept (per the FBI and Homeland Security).  So yes, they show up to provide security for leftist rallies and demonstrations, but it's all ad hoc.  Actors on the right: not so much.  So its apples and oranges here.

Communism is only a concept, too, so I guess Russia had nothing to worry about.

Go do some research on them from people not on their vetted list of friendly journalists and then come back and tell me they are just a loose, non-organized set of individuals who just happen to show up to provide 'protection.'  I've seen them in person and they are not anything like that but, as the youth say, it is not my job to educate you.

We can discuss this more in depth when you can tell me what they mean by 'fascism' and what their official stance on non-violence is.

[David Horn]

(02-04-2021, 03:19 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote: The real problem with radicals on the left: they aren't really organized.  Groups like BLM are real organizations, but they are political and not a threat.  Antifa is only a concept (per the FBI and Homeland Security).  So yes, they show up to provide security for leftist rallies and demonstrations, but it's all ad hoc.  Actors on the right: not so much.  So its apples and oranges here.

Communism is only a concept, too, so I guess Russia had nothing to worry about.

No, Russia had Leninism, followed by Stalinism.  Neither had much to do with Marx, though they borrowed his rhetoric and some of his economics.

mamabug Wrote:Go do some research on them from people not on their vetted list of friendly journalists and then come back and tell me they are just a loose, non-organized set of individuals who just happen to show up to provide 'protection.'  I've seen them in person and they are not anything like that but, as the youth say, it is not my job to educate you.

Do your own research.  If the FBI and Homeland Security, uptight organizations that they are, can't find an organization to cite, I'll take their word for it. 

mamabug Wrote:We can discuss this more in depth when you can tell me what they mean by 'fascism' and what their official stance on non-violence is.

They tend to favor the oppressed over their oppressors, and reserve the right to define who, what and which.  Since they tend to be loosely affiliated, the range of opinions will be rather wide. 'They' have no opinion on violence either, because there is no 'they'.  I'm sure there are violent people calling themselves Antifa, and there are others who get their internal marching orders from anti-violence.  To be honest, they are a bit of a conundrum.

[Einzige]

Why is nonviopmence to be preferred to violence?

[Classic-Xer]

(02-03-2021, 01:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

Classic's first two sentences win the prize for astonishment. He forgets that trickle-down doesn't trickle. It does not create wealth except for a few. The trickle-up economy, the regulated and taxed mixed economy, is what creates wealth. We all benefit, and if we had this economy, many people of all Parties would have nice homes. Trickle-down economics is a policy, not an inventory. 

Your Party wants to reserve nice homes for a privileged few. Some Democrats today are wealthy and benefit from trickle-down economics, but they realize that their wealth is endangered by an economy that is narrowly-based, and in which many are poor. And they realize that life is less valuable too, if its riches of all kinds are restricted to a few armed people in gated communities, which is what YOU want.

I don't live in a gated community like the uber rich/ limousine liberals/ yuppi's/ hipsters these days. A well armed community doesn't need gates to protect it from the dangers associated with the real world. I'd say most Democrats are as wealthy if not wealthier than their Republican counter parts these days. The bulk of them just happen to be corporate women these days. You're on the big government side which seems to have a bigger problem with not enough trickling down these days. Isn't that the truth related to the big government side that you represent today. The big government side isn't nearly trickling down enough to keep everyone below them happy/satisfied/feeling good about themselves these days.

[mamabug]

(02-04-2021, 06:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: They tend to favor the oppressed over their oppressors, and reserve the right to define who, what and which.  Since they tend to be loosely affiliated, the range of opinions will be rather wide. 'They' have no opinion on violence either, because there is no 'they'.  I'm sure there are violent people calling themselves Antifa, and there are others who get their internal marching orders from anti-violence.  To be honest, they are a bit of a conundrum.

The motte and bailey arguments with regard to them are disingenuous at best.  By that standard, you could call White Nationalism or Islamic Fundamentalism 'an idea.'

How about this - there is, in the PNW, a large network of organized and loosely affiliated groups that claim to be operating in the name of anti-fascism when what they mean by 'fascist' is the American State itself.  They hold that anyone supporting the state either actively as an agent or passively through not participating in the revolution is participating in fascism.  They hold that non-violence is a tool of the state, therefore acting non-violently is participating in fascism so it is morally justified to use violence against those supporting the state.  They hold that the idea of property is also a tool of the state, therefore willful destruction of property is fighting fascism.  

They are smart enough to avoid naming themselves anything other than 'anti-fascists' because they know useful idiots will go around explaining how it's just a concept in order to pretend the violent Left doesn't exist.  Just consider, though, that they might not be your friends.  They turned on two of the most liberal mayors in the country because they didn't cave sufficiently enough to their demands and, then when they did cave, continued to turn on them because that wasn't enough.  What they want, at heart, is to overthrow the American System and replace it with themselves.  

The only difference between the violent Left and the violent Right is that the latter is given no cover by even those they claim to be on the same ideological side of, which is a good thing.  OTOH, the violent Left have enough power within deep blue cities to destroy property, commit assault, and even kill people with near impunity.  This isn't political power they themselves hold, it is power due to how effective their self-marketing campaign has been in convincing normal left-leaning individuals to think they are 'the resistance.'

If you still think there is no violent Left, then I would like to cordially invite you to go for a walk in down near the federal justice center in Portland while wearing a red baseball cap.

[pbrower2a]

mamabug -- do they really hate the Cincinnati Reds that much there?

[David Horn]

(02-04-2021, 09:50 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-04-2021, 06:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: They tend to favor the oppressed over their oppressors, and reserve the right to define who, what and which.  Since they tend to be loosely affiliated, the range of opinions will be rather wide. 'They' have no opinion on violence either, because there is no 'they'.  I'm sure there are violent people calling themselves Antifa, and there are others who get their internal marching orders from anti-violence.  To be honest, they are a bit of a conundrum.

The motte and bailey arguments with regard to them are disingenuous at best.  By that standard, you could call White Nationalism or Islamic Fundamentalism 'an idea.'

How about this - there is, in the PNW, a large network of organized and loosely affiliated groups that claim to be operating in the name of anti-fascism when what they mean by 'fascist' is the American State itself.  They hold that anyone supporting the state either actively as an agent or passively through not participating in the revolution is participating in fascism.  They hold that non-violence is a tool of the state, therefore acting non-violently is participating in fascism so it is morally justified to use violence against those supporting the state.  They hold that the idea of property is also a tool of the state, therefore willful destruction of property is fighting fascism.  

They are smart enough to avoid naming themselves anything other than 'anti-fascists' because they know useful idiots will go around explaining how it's just a concept in order to pretend the violent Left doesn't exist.  Just consider, though, that they might not be your friends.  They turned on two of the most liberal mayors in the country because they didn't cave sufficiently enough to their demands and, then when they did cave, continued to turn on them because that wasn't enough.  What they want, at heart, is to overthrow the American System and replace it with themselves.  

The only difference between the violent Left and the violent Right is that the latter is given no cover by even those they claim to be on the same ideological side of, which is a good thing.  OTOH, the violent Left have enough power within deep blue cities to destroy property, commit assault, and even kill people with near impunity.  This isn't political power they themselves hold, it is power due to how effective their self-marketing campaign has been in convincing normal left-leaning individuals to think they are 'the resistance.'

If you still think there is no violent Left, then I would like to cordially invite you to go for a walk in down near the federal justice center in Portland while wearing a red baseball cap.

Are they a fringe element that we should be concerned about? Of course.  Then again, they don't show-up armed to the teeth like their RW analogs.  As I mentioned in other threads, we are finally watching the emerging end product of decades of antigovernment rhetoric. Thank the Gipper for making that popular.  So having whittled down the number of people holding more pro-government opinions, its now devolved to tribalism.  You seem to find that OK. Why?

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-04-2021, 06:25 PM)Einzige Wrote: Why is nonviopmence to be preferred to violence?

Most people value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Thus, if you can get these without violence, you do it.  Sometimes violence is necessary,  I have been saying for a while that non violence doesn't work so well in autocratic cultures.  The leaders can just ignore the people.  Sorta.  Looking at Russia, you wonder.  Looking at China, you wonder less.

How do you improve the culture when the leaders and elites do not show conscience?  Violence is sometimes necessary?

But you avoid it if you can.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2021, 09:50 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-04-2021, 06:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: They tend to favor the oppressed over their oppressors, and reserve the right to define who, what and which.  Since they tend to be loosely affiliated, the range of opinions will be rather wide. 'They' have no opinion on violence either, because there is no 'they'.  I'm sure there are violent people calling themselves Antifa, and there are others who get their internal marching orders from anti-violence.  To be honest, they are a bit of a conundrum.

The motte and bailey arguments with regard to them are disingenuous at best.  By that standard, you could call White Nationalism or Islamic Fundamentalism 'an idea.'

How about this - there is, in the PNW, a large network of organized and loosely affiliated groups that claim to be operating in the name of anti-fascism when what they mean by 'fascist' is the American State itself.  They hold that anyone supporting the state either actively as an agent or passively through not participating in the revolution is participating in fascism.  They hold that non-violence is a tool of the state, therefore acting non-violently is participating in fascism so it is morally justified to use violence against those supporting the state.  They hold that the idea of property is also a tool of the state, therefore willful destruction of property is fighting fascism.  

They are smart enough to avoid naming themselves anything other than 'anti-fascists' because they know useful idiots will go around explaining how it's just a concept in order to pretend the violent Left doesn't exist.  Just consider, though, that they might not be your friends.  They turned on two of the most liberal mayors in the country because they didn't cave sufficiently enough to their demands and, then when they did cave, continued to turn on them because that wasn't enough.  What they want, at heart, is to overthrow the American System and replace it with themselves.  

The only difference between the violent Left and the violent Right is that the latter is given no cover by even those they claim to be on the same ideological side of, which is a good thing.  OTOH, the violent Left have enough power within deep blue cities to destroy property, commit assault, and even kill people with near impunity.  This isn't political power they themselves hold, it is power due to how effective their self-marketing campaign has been in convincing normal left-leaning individuals to think they are 'the resistance.'

If you still think there is no violent Left, then I would like to cordially invite you to go for a walk in down near the federal justice center in Portland while wearing a red baseball cap.

I disagree that this violent left groups is specifically "antifa." There are no doubt some people like this, loosely described as "anarchists," who seem to be poorly organized, and I have not heard of fatalities committed by them as you allege. I have heard of property damage committed by them, mostly in the PNW. 

The political "Left" in general in the USA, which we may call liberal Democrats, democratic socialists, Greens, etc, does not consist in such groups, and this USA political "Left" does not support or agree with them or derive any power or benefit from them. They play into the hands of the right-wing, as does the actual antifa group-- which is not quite the same. Antifa confronts fascists when they march or riot, and can do so violently. That's not to say that some members of antifa are not also like the anarchists you describe.

Is Einzige one of them? I don't know. Most of these what I call "anarchists" are probably not Marxists either.

[pbrower2a]

(02-04-2021, 06:25 PM)Einzige Wrote: Why is nonviolence to be preferred to violence?

Non-violent confrontation isn't lawless. Most people have some recognition of the validity of law and order. Actions that look criminal usually are seen as such. Law and order means that people caught in overt crimes face legal retribution. Command-and-control, which is genuine repression that one associates with exploitation, corruption, and rigid rule, is a different matter. Law and order is essential to civil liberty; command-and-control is its enemy. Where the police go after brawlers, muggers, robbers, and rapists one has law and order.  Where the police pursue political dissidents and those who resist corporate power one has command-and-control. In the First World, Japan is arguably the worst country in which to be a criminal because law enforcement is strict and efficient, criminal sentences are severe, and criminals typically endure mind control of the sort that the People's Republic of China exerts upon political dissidents. On the other side, Japanese law enforcement treats political dissidence and personal eccentricity with kid gloves. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world because it has relatively few repeat offenders. Organized criminals ordinarily gravitate to richer countries; the Yakuza (the Japanese equivalent of Chinese triads or the Sicilian Mafia) emigrates even to poorer countries in which it can get away with more. South Africa under Apartheid, at least in its treatment of blacks, was the opposite. Criminals got away with every imaginable crime so long as they did so to fellow black people, but if they challenged the Apartheid system and demanded rights like those that we Americans (or the Japanese) take for granted, they faced brutal attacks.  

Law and order is the first civil right, and where it does not exist enumerated civil rights are void. Non-violent resistance is respect for the fundamental decencies that inform the behavior of law enforcement and other aspects of civil life. It is far safer to address police brutality if one is not brutal to the police. People of political maturity see gross inequity doing them no good and any privilege that they get from it suspect. Civil disobedience is not disorder; it is respect for the formality of the legal system. It is blatant and overt, the antithesis of criminality that is secretive, violent, and selfish. Civil disobedience implies that one loses dignity to stand for something higher. If I can mock someone who breaks into a house through a dog door and gets a lesson on how dangerous any large carnivore or pack of small carnivores can be, I don't want law enforcement going after non-violent protesters of Occupy Wall Street or gay-rights protesters in the past or Black Lives Matters protesters today.  



This is not law enforcement; it is command-and-control resorting to lawlessness to enforce degrading customs of ethnic subordination.

(2) The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States establishes freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances against the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes the same against State governments, and paradoxically the state governments (see above) have often been more likely to violate human rights. Images of this type made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a political necessity if America was to make any claim to be anything other than an Apartheid society.

Most countries have Constitutions modeled after the US Constitution. Even Stalin's 1936 Constitution was in many places a plagiarism of ours. Germany in 1938 had a Constitution much like ours, and until 1933 it was in effect. In 1933, you-know-who set Constitutional protections aside in favor of an agenda that required dictatorship and a savage brutality to enforce the command-and-control system of the Third Reich. 

      

Decent societies suppress this sort of rioting. Nazi leaders encouraged this (Kristallnacht). On the whole, German Jews had done nothing wrong. They typically thought that they were Germans. Goebbels did not condemn it; he called it off when international reporting looked like this:



Law and order is necessary for safety and prosperity.  Command-and-control is good only for enriching elites and salving illegitimate resentments.

[Eric the Green]

Violence is a violation of peoples' rights and dignity.

[Einzige]

(02-05-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Violence is a violation of peoples' rights and dignity.

I don't think you believe this.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2021, 08:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 01:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Big tech and the uber rich support trickle down, and that's what you and the Republican Party supports. Democrats do not.

Gun laws work. Societies that have them have less violent crime and less gun violence. So, once most people in the USA agree with the conservative "liberals" that Einzige quoted, and not with the commies he quoted, then if you buy guns on the black market, we will keep taking them away from you no matter how long it takes. And clearly you have violent aims, so they should be taken away from YOU. We're a comin' fer youse guns, baby  And if you violently rebel, it will be a lot easier to take your guns, because prisoners have a lot tougher time getting them.

Which Democrats don't support it these days? I've been in some really nice homes that are owned by Democratic voters. Go ahead and come for American's guns (mine included) and make the same mistake as the British in the past. Like I said, once the war with the Democrats begins, there will be no place that's safe for the Democrats (any Democrat) to live/go/visit in the entire country.

Classic's first two sentences win the prize for astonishment. He forgets that trickle-down doesn't trickle. It does not create wealth except for a few. The trickle-up economy, the regulated and taxed mixed economy, is what creates wealth. We all benefit, and if we had this economy, many people of all Parties would have nice homes. Trickle-down economics is a policy, not an inventory. 

Your Party wants to reserve nice homes for a privileged few. Some Democrats today are wealthy and benefit from trickle-down economics, but they realize that their wealth is endangered by an economy that is narrowly-based, and in which many are poor. And they realize that life is less valuable too, if its riches of all kinds are restricted to a few armed people in gated communities, which is what YOU want.

I don't live in a gated community like the uber rich/ limousine liberals/ yuppi's/ hipsters these days. A well armed community doesn't need gates to protect it from the dangers associated with the real  world. I'd say most Democrats are as wealthy if not wealthier than their Republican counter parts these days. The bulk of them just happen to be corporate women these days. You're on the big government side which seems to have a bigger problem with not enough trickling down these days. Isn't that the truth related to the big government side that you represent today. The big government side isn't nearly trickling down enough to keep everyone below them happy/satisfied/feeling good about themselves these days.

Government, when in the peoples' hands (which it hasn't been in decades, but in Republicans' hands instead), ensures justice and mercy, so we don't have to wait for a trickle that never comes, and prosperity is spread around in a society where people can be more relaxed instead of having their noses to the grindstone, which is operated by the privileged few-- for the privileged few. But you trickle-down economics, "job creaters" believers worship the privileged few, and expect and hope for that trickle that never comes, which would come you think if only you could oppress enough people who are different from you, whom you blame for the trickle not coming down from the skyscrapers where your heroes sit back and collect their millions and billions.

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2021, 09:12 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-05-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Violence is a violation of peoples' rights and dignity.

I don't think you believe this.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. It is a valid principle.