Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Humans are social animals, not solitary animals where each organism has it's own territory. In hunter-gatherer societies there are only group territories, not "property".
Your ignorance isn't surprising, though, one has to be ignorant of sociology, anthropology, and archeology to be a Libertarian, as I said eariler, it's warmed-over 18th century social contract ideology mixed in with simplistic Victorian Era Social-Darwinist misunderstandings of natural selection and Darwinian Evolution.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-09-2016, 05:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 05:11 PM by Drakus79.)
Quote:The far-left generally has no problem with sole-proprietorships as long as they are small and employing mostly family.
And their businesses would not grow beyond that under marxism because the government would take it away by force. This is why everyone remains poor in communist societies ... except for the ruling class. This whole distinction between petty / personal property and private property is very arbitrary.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 05:06 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: And their businesses would not grow beyond that under marxism because the government would take it away by force. This is why everyone remains poor in communist societies ... except for the ruling class.
There has never actual Communist country by definition, Communism is a classless, stateless society. You are thinking of the State-Capitalist Stalinist regimes that established themselves in developing countries that were already poor
An actual Communist society would be a futuristic post-scarcity society where the concept of money and business has become irrelevant. The society in Iain Bank's sci-fi novels about "The Culture" are an example (Banks was a Marxist).
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Business should stay small or medium size. Otherwise you just have oligarchic tyranny. God bless the far left if they can break up the big boys.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
(07-09-2016, 04:57 PM)Odin Wrote: Well that escalated quickly...
(07-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I don’t have a problem with conservative ideas, it only become a problem when people start talking about each other in a threatening manner. I suspect that a lot of people will find Odin’s views on property extreme and a certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with them. I’m not even sure that his views of property even apply to a single person business like yours anyway but he’ll have to speak for himself.
The far-left generally has no problem with sole-proprietorships as long as they are small and employing mostly family.
(07-09-2016, 05:06 PM)Odin Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Humans are social animals, not solitary animals where each organism has it's own territory. In hunter-gatherer societies there are only group territories, not "property".
Your ignorance isn't surprising, though, one has to be ignorant of sociology, anthropology, and archeology to be a Libertarian, as I said eariler, it's warmed-over 18th century social contract ideology mixed in with simplistic Victorian Era Social-Darwinist misunderstandings of natural selection and Darwinian Evolution.
From wikipedia
Quote:Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate.
I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his private property defending his land from invaders (despite the fact that the man with the gun might have a signed deed).
When I read Marx he defined personal property as petit property (or petty property), but it's really just an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
(07-09-2016, 04:57 PM)Odin Wrote: Well that escalated quickly...
(07-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I don’t have a problem with conservative ideas, it only become a problem when people start talking about each other in a threatening manner. I suspect that a lot of people will find Odin’s views on property extreme and a certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with them. I’m not even sure that his views of property even apply to a single person business like yours anyway but he’ll have to speak for himself.
The far-left generally has no problem with sole-proprietorships as long as they are small and employing mostly family.
(07-09-2016, 05:06 PM)Odin Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Humans are social animals, not solitary animals where each organism has it's own territory. In hunter-gatherer societies there are only group territories, not "property".
Your ignorance isn't surprising, though, one has to be ignorant of sociology, anthropology, and archeology to be a Libertarian, as I said eariler, it's warmed-over 18th century social contract ideology mixed in with simplistic Victorian Era Social-Darwinist misunderstandings of natural selection and Darwinian Evolution.
From wikipedia
Quote:Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate.
I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his private property from invaders (despite the fact that the man with the gun might have a signed deed showing he owns his land).
When I read Marx he defined personal property as petit property (or petty property), but it's really just an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-09-2016, 05:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 05:22 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Your beliefs threaten the viability of our society. But regardless, people should not be "killed" for their beliefs. Hyperbole, I suppose, on your part, but not valid or virtuous. You really think that's American?
Having to pay taxes worries Republicans. But people who pay attention are more concerned about other things than just having to pay taxes. It really tells us just where their heads are at.
I suggest (in jest, probably) that it should be taxable to be a Republican voter. Make them pay till it hurts! Classic, I hope your taxes go sky high!
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-09-2016, 05:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 05:29 PM by Drakus79.)
(07-09-2016, 04:57 PM)Odin Wrote: Well that escalated quickly...
(07-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I don’t have a problem with conservative ideas, it only become a problem when people start talking about each other in a threatening manner. I suspect that a lot of people will find Odin’s views on property extreme and a certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with them. I’m not even sure that his views of property even apply to a single person business like yours anyway but he’ll have to speak for himself.
The far-left generally has no problem with sole-proprietorships as long as they are small and employing mostly family.
(07-09-2016, 05:06 PM)Odin Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Humans are social animals, not solitary animals where each organism has it's own territory. In hunter-gatherer societies there are only group territories, not "property".
Your ignorance isn't surprising, though, one has to be ignorant of sociology, anthropology, and archeology to be a Libertarian, as I said eariler, it's warmed-over 18th century social contract ideology mixed in with simplistic Victorian Era Social-Darwinist misunderstandings of natural selection and Darwinian Evolution.
From wikipedia
Quote:Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate.
I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his land from invaders.
The difference between Personal and Private Property really down to an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-09-2016, 05:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 05:27 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-09-2016, 05:20 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his private property from invaders (despite the fact that the man with the gun might have a signed deed showing he owns his land).
There IS no difference. But that's the point. Such a society is not better than the liberal-Democratic society; it is far, far worse and a real pain to have to live in. Again though, having a deed is a government program, only available in civilizations, not in your animal social-darwinist barbarism.
Quote:When I read Marx he defined personal property as petit property (or petty property), but it's really just an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
"Property is theft." That's at least as valid a statement as yours: "taxes are theft."
I'm no Marxist, but I do prefer the mixed economy to the libertarian one.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-09-2016, 05:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 05:40 PM by Drakus79.)
(07-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:20 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his private property from invaders (despite the fact that the man with the gun might have a signed deed showing he owns his land).
There IS no difference. But that's the point. Such a society is not better than the liberal-Democratic society; it is far, far worse and a real pain to have to live in. Again though, having a deed is a government program, only available in civilizations, not in your animal social-darwinist barbarism.
Quote:When I read Marx he defined personal property as petit property (or petty property), but it's really just an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
"Property is theft." That's at least as valid a statement as yours: "taxes are theft."
I'm no Marxist, but I do prefer the mixed economy to the libertarian one.
But the libertarian economy IS a mixed economy. It's just more capitalist than socialist (truly capitalist not crony-capitalist). You need to create wealth in order to redistribute it. And by wealth I mean real tangible growth and an increase in the standard of living. Not monopoly money.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 05:32 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:20 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I still don't see how an animal defending his territory from predators is fundamentally different than a man with a gun defending his private property from invaders (despite the fact that the man with the gun might have a signed deed showing he owns his land).
There IS no difference. But that's the point. Such a society is not better than the liberal-Democratic society; it is far, far worse and a real pain to have to live in. Again though, having a deed is a government program, only available in civilizations, not in your animal social-darwinist barbarism.
Quote:When I read Marx he defined personal property as petit property (or petty property), but it's really just an arbitrary difference of scale that's not clearly defined and a way for Marxists to move the goalposts and say "you can keep this, but we get to take this away from you".
"Property is theft." That's at least as valid a statement as yours: "taxes are theft."
I'm no Marxist, but I do prefer the mixed economy to the libertarian one.
But the libertarian economy IS a mixed economy. It's just more capitalist than socialist (truly capitalist not crony-capitalist). You need to create wealth in order to redistribute it. And by wealth I mean real tangible growth and an increase in the standard of living. Not monopoly money.
I just want more of a mixture than you do. Difference in degree.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-09-2016, 08:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 08:02 PM by Drakus79.)
Fair enough. As Gary Johnson likes to say: "The Devil's in the details".
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 05:06 PM)Odin Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Humans are social animals, not solitary animals where each organism has it's own territory. In hunter-gatherer societies there are only group territories, not "property".
Your ignorance isn't surprising, though, one has to be ignorant of sociology, anthropology, and archeology to be a Libertarian, as I said eariler, it's warmed-over 18th century social contract ideology mixed in with simplistic Victorian Era Social-Darwinist misunderstandings of natural selection and Darwinian Evolution.
Humans are humans. There's no difference between ones territory/property and ones business or ones home to a human with a brain. You live in US territory aka American territory aka my territory and your territory. I assume that you live in American territory. Territory that was seized from the British because the British did not recognize property rights/ territorial rights of American citizens. Right now, your talking like those British to an American within American territory. I think a North Korean stork dropped you here by mistake. You should have been dropped somewhere in North Korean territory. In my opinion, you are either so isolated and completely clueless as far as knowledge of the humans and the American territory that we all live in or a little of both. Question, has the liberal frat boy talk got you any where with anyone other than another liberal frat boy.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
07-09-2016, 09:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 10:01 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(07-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: "Property is theft." That's at least as valid a statement as yours: "taxes are theft"
I'm no Marxist, but I do prefer the mixed economy to the libertarian one.
Not really. Property that is not stolen/taken is acquired with consent. Taxation is acquired with or without ones consent. There was a time when a group of people largely comprised with folks who 8th grade educations, no TV's, no internet trusted big government. A time when information communications and data was limited. We're not there anymore. We have advanced. Why do you keep talking as if we still are those folks? You will only find people with an 8th grade education in down trodden areas like the hood, areas that turn out large numbers of clueless air heads or the backwoods. I assume that you're not an American Indian that I would accept as a valid beef relating to them. Other than that, we are all bound to the same rule that we either accept or reject and move away. I do not see a Civil War ending in your favor. I do not see Abe Lincoln showing up anytime soon. I see you ending the same as the South without the Constitutional rights being recognized and reinstated afterwards. I suggest you education system who is responsible for the education of the blacks we are seeing on TV that their students look like complete idiots who don't understand anything other than 3rd world mob rule, social darwin, barbarianism stuff that your accusing us as being.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 04:56 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
I'd like him to tell me which corporation doesn't have a human or group of humans involved in its ownership and humans who are financially attached to it.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
07-10-2016, 12:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 01:04 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(07-09-2016, 05:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Your beliefs threaten the viability of our society. But regardless, people should not be "killed" for their beliefs. Hyperbole, I suppose, on your part, but not valid or virtuous. You really think that's American?
Having to pay taxes worries Republicans. But people who pay attention are more concerned about other things than just having to pay taxes. It really tells us just where their heads are at.
I suggest (in jest, probably) that it should be taxable to be a Republican voter. Make them pay till it hurts! Classic, I hope your taxes go sky high!
I understand that expressing ones beliefs in a forum and acting on ones beliefs and attempting to impose them on me in real life is different. Expressing them, cutting down and smothering others beliefs in favor of your own and establishing them is harmless in a forum like this one. However, a forum like this ain't exactly the real world now is it. The real word can be and often is much harder and much tougher than this forum. It's pretty hard to place someone on ignore when they're pissed off and in your face and aren't going to let skip out of the situation that your in. I don't think Obama has ever been in that position. If he had, he would be wiser and more socially advanced than he appears to be to me. My beliefs are the direct counter to your beliefs and I made that point very clear to both of you. Now, take out your calculator and add up all the blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds who hold similar beliefs who will be joining together to defeat you. BTW, what you suggest is the way it already is in America which is why we vote the way that we do. We want results.The Democrats want their checks. You want your check and your subsidies to continue. Democrats aren't to concerned about results. What happens to the leaches when they run out of blood?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-10-2016, 01:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 04:30 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-10-2016, 12:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Your beliefs threaten the viability of our society. But regardless, people should not be "killed" for their beliefs. Hyperbole, I suppose, on your part, but not valid or virtuous. You really think that's American?
Having to pay taxes worries Republicans. But people who pay attention are more concerned about other things than just having to pay taxes. It really tells us just where their heads are at.
I suggest (in jest, probably) that it should be taxable to be a Republican voter. Make them pay till it hurts! Classic, I hope your taxes go sky high!
I understand that expressing ones beliefs in a forum and acting on ones beliefs and attempting to impose them on me in real life is different. Expressing them, cutting down and smothering others beliefs in favor of your own and establishing them is harmless in a forum like this one. However, a forum like this ain't exactly the real world now is it. The real world can be and often is much harder and much tougher than this forum. It's pretty hard to place someone on ignore when they're pissed off and in your face and aren't going to let skip out of the situation that your in. I don't think Obama has ever been in that position. If he had, he would be wiser and more socially advanced than he appears to be to me. My beliefs are the direct counter to your beliefs and I made that point very clear to both of you. Now, take out your calculator and add up all the blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds who hold similar beliefs who will be joining together to defeat you. BTW, what you suggest is the way it already is in America which is why we vote the way that we do. We want results. The Democrats want their checks. You want your check and your subsidies to continue. Democrats aren't to concerned about results. What happens to the leaches when they run out of blood?
Welfare is a tiny portion of your taxes, and already much reduced. Social security and medicare are paid for by its beneficiaries, the young supporting the old until the young become old. And safety nets protect everyone, including you. The tortured world view of constant fighting and struggle for survival is only true when and if YOU guys win.
What is more challenging to the less informed, the narrow-minded, than living in the dog-eat-dog world you speak of and support and want us all to remain stuck in, is to see the larger and longer view, and to understand all the history of the modern world and where it's been and where it's going; enough to see today in context, and to see what a wrong path your side has led us down. We need to turn back from the Reagan detour, and get back on the right side of the world revolution, as Dr. King said in 1967.
I know you resent me because I am so effective in countering you and your side. But I welcome the game, so that's OK. And you make incredibly-wild leaps of supposition, again demonstrated by your assertion that you know all about Obama's life. I know much more about him than you do; I have and read his book. He is where he is because of his prodigious talent and study. He would be much more respected than he is, were it not for the decadent state of half of American opinion embodied by such as yourself, which has held us back for so long and kept the nation from soaring ahead.
I understand that you have had to face challenges and fights. You speak partly from your experience. I don't know why you assume that I live off the government. I never have. I have gotten some benefit from my family, so if anything based on my economic situation I should think more like you do. But I know what kind of society I want to live in, and what works, and I know what it's like to feel disrespected just as the less fortunate do, so that's what determines my views.
Your trickle-down ideology may fool many. But the counter-revolution of Reagan has failed. The Revolution will start up again, and we will go forward. There's always many fits and starts, because it's true that humanity has much to learn, and the ways of war can't ultimately change the world. It will take expansion of consciousness and understanding. So I wish that you too can catch the wave and feel the winds blowing, which the rock and folk artists of the seventies and sixties spoke of. The people of color are of course all on MY side, not yours; as are whites of education, understanding and inspiration. There are still many of us around, in spite of the cynicism of the 3T and Reagan years.
It's amazing that you say you want "results!" Your side wants only blocks and stalls. The tides of progress will crash and sweep your side away, and the world will move on beyond the self-reliance, trickle-down, free market, individualist, neo-liberal, classical-liberal, social-darwinist, racist dog-whistle delusions, to the understanding that we all must contribute together. We will hang together, or we will hang separately. Our nation will move ahead again soon, or our nation will die. And take the world with it.
"We are all in this life together" is just a different world view than the one you hold. We can't be sure which one will prevail, but I hope and expect that the better view will, because as Martin Luther King and Theodore Parker said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 01:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-10-2016, 12:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Your beliefs threaten the viability of our society. But regardless, people should not be "killed" for their beliefs. Hyperbole, I suppose, on your part, but not valid or virtuous. You really think that's American?
Having to pay taxes worries Republicans. But people who pay attention are more concerned about other things than just having to pay taxes. It really tells us just where their heads are at.
I suggest (in jest, probably) that it should be taxable to be a Republican voter. Make them pay till it hurts! Classic, I hope your taxes go sky high!
I understand that expressing ones beliefs in a forum and acting on ones beliefs and attempting to impose them on me in real life is different. Expressing them, cutting down and smothering others beliefs in favor of your own and establishing them is harmless in a forum like this one. However, a forum like this ain't exactly the real world now is it. The real world can be and often is much harder and much tougher than this forum. It's pretty hard to place someone on ignore when they're pissed off and in your face and aren't going to let skip out of the situation that your in. I don't think Obama has ever been in that position. If he had, he would be wiser and more socially advanced than he appears to be to me. My beliefs are the direct counter to your beliefs and I made that point very clear to both of you. Now, take out your calculator and add up all the blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds who hold similar beliefs who will be joining together to defeat you. BTW, what you suggest is the way it already is in America which is why we vote the way that we do. We want results. The Democrats want their checks. You want your check and your subsidies to continue. Democrats aren't to concerned about results. What happens to the leaches when they run out of blood?
Welfare is a tiny portion of your taxes, and already much reduced. Social security and medicare are paid for by its beneficiaries, the young supporting the old until the young become old. And safety nets protect everyone, including you. The tortured world view of constant fighting and struggle for survival is only true when and if YOU guys win.
What is more challenging to the less informed, the narrow-minded, than living in the dog-eat-dog world you speak of and support and want us all to remain stuck in, is to see the larger and longer view, and to understand all the history of the modern world and where it's been and where it's going; enough to see today in context, and to see what a wrong path your side has led us down. We need to turn back from the Reagan detour, and get back on the right side of the world revolution, as Dr. King said in 1967.
I know you resent me because I am so effective in countering you and your side. But I welcome the game, so that's OK. And you make incredibly-wild leaps of supposition, again demonstrated by your assertion that you know all about Obama's life. I know much more about him than you do; I have and read his book. He is where he is because of his prodigious talent and study. He would be much more respected than he is, were it not for the decadent state of half of American opinion embodied by such as yourself, which has held us back for so long and kept the nation from soaring ahead.
I understand that you have had to face challenges and fights. You speak partly from your experience. I don't know why you assume that I live off the government. I never have. I have gotten some benefit from my family, so if anything based on my economic situation I should think more like you do. But I know what kind of society I want to live in, and what works, and I know what it's like to feel disrespected just as the less fortunate do, so that's what determines my views.
Your trickle-down ideology may fool many. But the counter-revolution of Reagan has failed. The Revolution will start up again, and we will go forward. There's always many fits and starts, because it's true that humanity has much to learn, and the ways of war can't ultimately change the world. It will take expansion of consciousness and understanding. So I wish that you too can catch the wave and feel the winds blowing, which the rock and folk artists of the seventies and sixties spoke of. The people of color are of course all on MY side, not yours; as are whites of education, understanding and inspiration. There are still many of us around, in spite of the cynicism of the 3T and Reagan years.
It's amazing that you say you want "results!" Your side wants only blocks and stalls. The tides of progress will crash and sweep your side away, and the world will move on beyond the self-reliance, trickle-down, free market, individualist, neo-liberal, classical-liberal, social-darwinist, racist dog-whistle delusions, to the understanding that we all must contribute together. We will hang together, or we will hang separately. Our nation will move ahead again soon, or our nation will die. And take the world with it.
"We are all in this life together" is just a different world view than the one you hold. We can't be sure which one will prevail, but I hope and expect that the better view will, because as Martin Luther King and Theodore Parker said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
In a sense, we are all in this together but the choice to remain together is our decision to make. Honestly, I'd really like to see how the Socialist States of America establish themselves as the bulk of the wealth moves to the United States. As you know, the US isn't going to be as generous with it's taxpayer money as it is today.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-11-2016, 12:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-10-2016, 01:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-10-2016, 12:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Your beliefs threaten the viability of our society. But regardless, people should not be "killed" for their beliefs. Hyperbole, I suppose, on your part, but not valid or virtuous. You really think that's American?
Having to pay taxes worries Republicans. But people who pay attention are more concerned about other things than just having to pay taxes. It really tells us just where their heads are at.
I suggest (in jest, probably) that it should be taxable to be a Republican voter. Make them pay till it hurts! Classic, I hope your taxes go sky high!
I understand that expressing ones beliefs in a forum and acting on ones beliefs and attempting to impose them on me in real life is different. Expressing them, cutting down and smothering others beliefs in favor of your own and establishing them is harmless in a forum like this one. However, a forum like this ain't exactly the real world now is it. The real world can be and often is much harder and much tougher than this forum. It's pretty hard to place someone on ignore when they're pissed off and in your face and aren't going to let skip out of the situation that your in. I don't think Obama has ever been in that position. If he had, he would be wiser and more socially advanced than he appears to be to me. My beliefs are the direct counter to your beliefs and I made that point very clear to both of you. Now, take out your calculator and add up all the blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds who hold similar beliefs who will be joining together to defeat you. BTW, what you suggest is the way it already is in America which is why we vote the way that we do. We want results. The Democrats want their checks. You want your check and your subsidies to continue. Democrats aren't to concerned about results. What happens to the leaches when they run out of blood?
Welfare is a tiny portion of your taxes, and already much reduced. Social security and medicare are paid for by its beneficiaries, the young supporting the old until the young become old. And safety nets protect everyone, including you. The tortured world view of constant fighting and struggle for survival is only true when and if YOU guys win.
What is more challenging to the less informed, the narrow-minded, than living in the dog-eat-dog world you speak of and support and want us all to remain stuck in, is to see the larger and longer view, and to understand all the history of the modern world and where it's been and where it's going; enough to see today in context, and to see what a wrong path your side has led us down. We need to turn back from the Reagan detour, and get back on the right side of the world revolution, as Dr. King said in 1967.
I know you resent me because I am so effective in countering you and your side. But I welcome the game, so that's OK. And you make incredibly-wild leaps of supposition, again demonstrated by your assertion that you know all about Obama's life. I know much more about him than you do; I have and read his book. He is where he is because of his prodigious talent and study. He would be much more respected than he is, were it not for the decadent state of half of American opinion embodied by such as yourself, which has held us back for so long and kept the nation from soaring ahead.
I understand that you have had to face challenges and fights. You speak partly from your experience. I don't know why you assume that I live off the government. I never have. I have gotten some benefit from my family, so if anything based on my economic situation I should think more like you do. But I know what kind of society I want to live in, and what works, and I know what it's like to feel disrespected just as the less fortunate do, so that's what determines my views.
Your trickle-down ideology may fool many. But the counter-revolution of Reagan has failed. The Revolution will start up again, and we will go forward. There's always many fits and starts, because it's true that humanity has much to learn, and the ways of war can't ultimately change the world. It will take expansion of consciousness and understanding. So I wish that you too can catch the wave and feel the winds blowing, which the rock and folk artists of the seventies and sixties spoke of. The people of color are of course all on MY side, not yours; as are whites of education, understanding and inspiration. There are still many of us around, in spite of the cynicism of the 3T and Reagan years.
It's amazing that you say you want "results!" Your side wants only blocks and stalls. The tides of progress will crash and sweep your side away, and the world will move on beyond the self-reliance, trickle-down, free market, individualist, neo-liberal, classical-liberal, social-darwinist, racist dog-whistle delusions, to the understanding that we all must contribute together. We will hang together, or we will hang separately. Our nation will move ahead again soon, or our nation will die. And take the world with it.
"We are all in this life together" is just a different world view than the one you hold. We can't be sure which one will prevail, but I hope and expect that the better view will, because as Martin Luther King and Theodore Parker said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
In a sense, we are all in this together but the choice to remain together is our decision to make. Honestly, I'd really like to see how the Socialist States of America establish themselves as the bulk of the wealth moves to the United States. As you know, the US isn't going to be as generous with it's taxpayer money as it is today.
I figure it will have to be MORE generous, as automation puts most people out of work, and ownership of the means of production by and FOR a few wealthy machine owners will not be so acceptable as it is today under the rule of the Republicans.
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
Sure.
1. Crony capitalism is bad. It's oligarchy upheld by the force of the state.
2. Anarcho syndicalism is good. We have this already in the form of credit unions and public utilities. I have both. 
3. Private property per say isn't bad. Folks should have title to such things as their houses and vehicles. I'd ditch property taxes since they negate the ownership of the above. Now, you rent your house from taxing authorities.
4. Public sector overreach is bad.
a. Civil asset forfeiture is legalized robbery and it's robbery because assets are taken by force. Thus civil asset forfeiture is evil. Public entities that have cops that do that are actually Pig Sties. Those cops are indeed pigs. Cops that do not rob people or trash their civil rights are professionals. Oklahoma is working to get rid of its Pig Sties.
b. Spying on people is bad. The NSA,CIA.FBI,DEA etc. need to be abolished.
c. Government agencies that support crony capitalism should be abolished. Those are the Federal Reserve,Fannie Mae,Freddie Mac, and Sally Mae also need to be abolished.
---
Of utmost service - Rags
---Value Added
|
