Printable View
[QUOTE=Hawker][B]How is the government stealing from someone against their will supposedly more ethical than that individual, through their own voluntary choice, designating who gets their wealth?[/B] There's no case to be made for that at all.
I know the russian mob folks have been arrested but you're making the inference that there's a connection - of which there is no proof of. That part is alleged.[/QUOTE]
Why do you own the land and resources? Where does this claim come from?
[QUOTE=Hawker]Isn't all that stuff still alleged? Number 2 definitely looks bad I'll agree with you.
I applaud his father for trying to evade estate taxes. Those are immoral and unethical.
I'd still rather have someone like Trump than a lawyer, activist or political science major who wants to be in politics for life.
Also, many people, like myself, don't care as much about character and judge the actions of policy decisions. Bush was a despicable piece of shit but you have people here trying to claim he's a good dude that cares about people. It's hard to take people like that seriously when they try to make moral and ethical high grounds over Trump. These individuals are brainwashed to hate the guy - and normally can't name anything he's done policy wise and critique it.[/QUOTE]
I can't find the clip now, but I recall several years ago on PTI, Michael Wilbon made some comments along the lines of how black people hear the way that Trump characterizes other "out group" members, like immigrants and foreigners, and that the presence of that sort of open chauvism/bigotry makes them viscerally nervous.
I don't know how much there is to it, but it sounded good to me. It seems crazy to me that it's so socially acceptable to discriminate against someone born in another state's territory, when doing so is arguably even less defensible than discriminating based on skin color.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]I used to work in investment banking, and now I'm in education. My first degree was finance (specializing in banking services). I basically managed people's retirement funds.
Democrats are mostly shit too. We basically have 4 parties right now, compressed into 2 by our election rules.
1. The Trump Wing. (I could go on and on about how people end up being huge Trump fans, but we all kind of get it by now).
2. Corporate Republicans (Mitch McConnell etc...). These guys used to own the party until Trump came along. They line up on the right of social issues (gay rights, guns, drugs....). They support subsidizing business and an interventionist foreign policy.
3. Corporate Democrats (The Nancy and Chuck wing). They line up on the left of social issues (gay rights, guns, drugs....). They support subsidizing business and an interventionist foreign policy.
Corporate R's and D's are really only different on social issues. These "wedge" social issues just serve to keep workers divided.
4. The Left. For a lot of America's history, the Left was openly repressed by the police. We have a bloody history of labor riots up until WW2. After WW2, the socialist left was purged from the government and major media sources. The Left has made a come back thanks to the Iraq War and 2008 Great Recession. Bernie Sanders is pretty much a centrist Dem from the 1930s on financial issues and taxes. Obviously he's far to the left of them on social issues.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you really only have praise for the left. Bernie praised communist countries like Nicaragua, Cuba and Russia. How comes he's stopped doing so?I'd say he's far left on financial and tax issues as well. None of his so called democrat socialist paradises exist without heavily taxing the middle class. Good luck selling that to the US. It's just unfortunate that many people stopped learning history after WWII to see the dangers of socialism and communism failures from the 50s onward.
I agree with your overall view of the four sectors. Corporate dems and republicans do differ on regulations. Generally republicans don't pass nearly as many regulations while repealing very little while corporate democrats support passing very many regulations and never repealing any.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]Why do you own the land and resources? Where does this claim come from?[/QUOTE]
It comes from property rights that have existed since the foundation of the US - individuals should own the land and determine how they are used as opposed to the government (aristocratic governments like Europe which you seemed to detest earlier).
A philosophical, libertarian understanding essentially.
I could throw the same question to you really - why should the government own the land and resouces? Where does this claim come from? The main difference being is property rights and negotiation of how these properties would benefit individuals would be mainly voluntary whereas government would be by force.
We know what your kind of mindset leads to which is the Soviet Union - no thanks.
[QUOTE=MaxPlayer]I can't find the clip now, but I recall several years ago on PTI, Michael Wilbon made some comments along the lines of how black people hear the way that Trump characterizes other "out group" members, like immigrants and foreigners, and that the presence of that sort of open chauvism/bigotry makes them viscerally nervous.
I don't know how much there is to it, but it sounded good to me. It seems crazy to me that it's so socially acceptable to discriminate against someone born in another state's territory, when doing so is arguably even less defensible than discriminating based on skin color.[/QUOTE]
We are a world of nation-states - that's the reality. Every country discriminates based on their immigration system. Not many countries make you a citizen just for being born there. Not many countries have immigration systems just for being your aunt/uncle. To satisfy your desire, that would mean open border countries with no legal system to manage immigration. And if that were to happen, all state welfare/benefits would have to be ceased.
It's not crazy at all.
And I don't think Michael Wilbon from PTI should be anyone's foundation for political opinions - or sports media in general as they're extremely liberal biased.
[QUOTE=MaxPlayer]I can't find the clip now, but I recall several years ago on PTI, Michael Wilbon made some comments along the lines of how black people hear the way that Trump characterizes other "out group" members, like immigrants and foreigners, and that the presence of that sort of open chauvism/bigotry makes them viscerally nervous.
I don't know how much there is to it, but it sounded good to me. [B][COLOR="Red"] It seems crazy to me that it's so socially acceptable to discriminate against someone born in another state's territory,[/COLOR][/B] when doing so is arguably even less defensible than discriminating based on skin color.[/QUOTE]
what against democrat states?
both sides fling shit in that regard and have since forever thats politics 101.
[QUOTE=Hawker]It comes from property rights that have existed since the foundation of the US - individuals should own the land and determine how they are used as opposed to the government (aristocratic governments like Europe which you seemed to detest earlier).
A philosophical, libertarian understanding essentially.
I could throw the same question to you really - why should the government own the land and resouces? Where does this claim come from? The main difference being is property rights and negotiation of how these properties would benefit individuals would be mainly voluntary whereas government would be by force.
We know what your kind of mindset leads to which is the Soviet Union - no thanks.[/QUOTE]
Where did those property rights come from? The government. Your property rights are protected by the legal system which upholds contracts and deeds. Without the government, there is no right to property beyond what you can control by force.
Where does government come from? In older times, people said that their rulers were favored by God (or gods), and that was why they ruled legitimately. Theoretically the government in America is legitimate because it represent the people of the nation. Our representatives can basically do anything allowed by the Constitution, including taxes. [B]The same document that gave you property rights gives the government the ability to tax that property. [/B].
Our founding fathers knew that over-concentration of wealth was dangerous to the nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this, and said that it was necessary to control inheritance. Adam Smith actually wrote about this in "The Wealth of Nations" (considered the seminal work of capitalist theory). There are many obvious problems that can come from having a bunch of very rich people that didn't earn their money and don't have to work.
I wouldn't want to live in the USSR, but it's silly to criticize their quality of life if you don't have any context of what pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia was like. For example, 25% of Russia was literate when the communists took over. Within 10 years, that had doubled. By the 1950's they were as literate as any country on Earth.
Famines were common in Russian history. The last famine in their history was under Stalin. By the 60's Soviets were consuming more calories a day than Americans (until the 1990's. Not as much meat though).
Pre-revolutionary Russia literally horrified visitors from other countries due to the level of violence and poverty. Nobles carried around whips as a symbol of nobility and would use them often. Executions were common for things as small as grazing a cow on a noble's pasture (this is barely over 100 years ago).
[QUOTE=Hawker]Sounds like you really only have praise for the left. Bernie praised communist countries like Nicaragua, Cuba and Russia. How comes he's stopped doing so?I'd say he's far left on financial and tax issues as well. None of his so called democrat socialist paradises exist without heavily taxing the middle class. Good luck selling that to the US. It's just unfortunate that many people stopped learning history after WWII to see the dangers of socialism and communism failures from the 50s onward.
I agree with your overall view of the four sectors. Corporate dems and republicans do differ on regulations. [B]Generally republicans don't pass nearly as many regulations while repealing very little while corporate democrats support passing very many regulations and never repealing any[/B].[/QUOTE]
Corporate Dems have deregulated banking many times.
Republicans don't regulate corporations....they regulate individuals. War on drugs. Opposition to gay marriage. Opposition to abortion. These are all instances of the government regulating morality of individuals.
Regulations on businesses are usually good. Ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? Basically the meat-packing industry was just throwing chemicals and rats and human body parts in processed meats, and only stopped when the government regulated them.
Without government regulation, banks could invest your savings in risky start-ups, and then just stiff you if they went out of business. As it stands, banks have to reserve 10% of deposits, and pay for federal deposit insurance to make sure YOU don't get ripped off if the banks fail.
Don't fall for corporate BS on regulations.
[QUOTE=Hawker]We are a world of nation-states - that's the reality. Every country discriminates based on their immigration system. Not many countries make you a citizen just for being born there. Not many countries have immigration systems just for being your aunt/uncle. To satisfy your desire, that would mean open border countries with no legal system to manage immigration. And if that were to happen, all state welfare/benefits would have to be ceased.
It's not crazy at all.
[/QUOTE]
It just seems odd that in the "land of the free", I'm not allowed to trade with a Chinese person or hire a Mexican because some protectionist moron thinks I'd thereby be "taking his job."
That a self-described "libertarian" as yourself appears to view this as ethically normal seems illustrative of the problem. Hopefully someday more people will view this apartheid for what it is.
[QUOTE=Hawker]
And I don't think Michael Wilbon from PTI should be anyone's foundation for political opinions - or sports media in general as they're extremely liberal biased.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe that I cited him as a "foundation for political opinions," just as what I viewed as a refreshing and optimistic take on black people's alleged dislike of Trump.
Since a Canadian team won...
shouldnt they be going to 24 Sussex, not the white house?
:biggums:
[QUOTE=LukeWalton]Since a Canadian team won...
shouldnt they be going to 24 Sussex, not the white house?
:biggums:[/QUOTE]
Prime Minister already invited the Team. Nick Nurse already accepted the invitation. They will be in Ottawa, Ontario.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]Where did those property rights come from? The government.[/QUOTE]
***** wtf. the constitution was made to limit the power of the government can and cant do.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]Your property rights are protected by the legal system which upholds contracts and deeds. [/QUOTE]
yo i didnt sign shit lol inb4 you say theirs some imaginary contract i signed when i as born lol
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]Without the government, there is no right to property beyond what you can control by force. [/QUOTE]
so you dont own your body and you cant defend yourself? ain't nothing immoral about force if its used to defend yourself from getting jumped after some homies dont like you dominating them on the court.
[QUOTE=Detroit]Now imagine a white player saying no if Obama was in office :oldlol:
They would've labelled him a racist bigot and threw the book at him.[/QUOTE]
Media would def have exploded
[QUOTE=DaHeezy]Then is it fair to say you're an irrational prick who's a lefty snowflake? Because, you know, free speech.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I could call you an asshole who should mind your own fukking business. Trump goes against my political viewpoints more often than not, I don't dislike him just because he's a douchebag who writes mean tweets. And I'm not that far left, I'm socially conservative, more left on economic issues...
I know you oppose Trudeau, it's my free speech to call you an irrational prick too, you reactionary snowflake :cheers:
[QUOTE=Cleverness]Media would def have exploded[/QUOTE]
Tom Brady didn't go when the Patriots were invited...no one batted an eye and he's a pretty big name athlete.
Fail