Poor People are Ruining this Country

[Dresta]

huh?

Pretty obvious really: he makes a call to make things 'fairer', obviously implying that the federal government should simply redistribute the money in a fair way. He completely avoids the fact that everyone has a different opinion as to what is 'fair' and so any attempts to make it so must be arbitrary by nature. He also ignores that the expansion of the powers attributed to the federal government have been the biggest factor in making things as bad as they are.

There is a bit of truth to that and with some more than others, but the other part of the coin that you are not acknowledging is the lets stop acting like selfish apes side.

Conservative ideology is more animal based. You are only worth what you provide to the pack. You work to become top dog or be an assistant to top dog. It's competition based and challenges are always welcome. The big boys eat first and the others eat second. It works OK for packs and tribes, even small societies... but is shitty for large populations. It just stirs shit up to no end.

Liberal ideology simply recognizes the dysfunction and tries to better life for all people in general. the conservative mindset still works in their system... for it is the base for growth, but not everybody is interested in pushing the limits... some people are happy where they are.

It's the equivalent of going to a new gym to play basketball. When you get there the vibe is friendly and people don't play that serious. You thrive off competition... so you play really hard and serious and throw off the whole vibe of the gym. Some people will embrace the change, some people won't. Some were happy with the way it was. Is that a crime? Is it a crime to be satisfied? To not want to work very hard? Some people don't have much energy... just the way they are wired. Should they have to be cracked out on coffee just to keep up?

Yeah, it tries, and fails miserably, and then when it fails it claims that something else made it fail, and so tries again and makes everything even worse... and on, and on.

Renaming socialism liberalism does not make it any more viable, sorry to say. People who desperately try to force things to be better, and to improve the condition of man through the power of the state, have routinely created the worst societies throughout history.

Regardless, relying on the meaningless and increasingly blurred liberal/conservative dichotomy is a pretty sure sign of superficial understanding: they just don't stand for anything tangible anymore. Libertarians are the people who propose the most radical change from how things are currently managed, yet they are frequently called conservatives by 'liberals' who are far more conservative than they are (you can only see this if you understand what conservatism actually means, not how it is used by the inanities that shape contemporary political discourse).

[cuad]

Will y'all shut the **** up with your shitty academic babble?

rich people are making sure poor people stay poor

It's as simple as this.

I got a Nietzsche quote for your bitch-asses.

Will y'all shut the **** up with your shitty academic babble?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Will y'all shut the **** up with your shitty academic babble?



It's as simple as this.

I got a Nietzsche quote for your bitch-asses.

Are you poor or rich?

[Dresta]

Will y'all shut the **** up with your shitty academic babble?



It's as simple as this.

I got a Nietzsche quote for your bitch-asses.

Nietzsche would tell you to **** off and take your weak-ass slave morality with you.

[bagelred]

Pretty obvious really: he makes a call to make things 'fairer', obviously implying that the federal government should simply redistribute the money in a fair way.

The money was ALREADY redistributed in an unfair way. The tax rates on rich were lowered to get the rich all the money. Yes, we want the money back.

Your assumptions are off in a lot of ways. The wealth disaprity in this country is just unbelievably ridiculous, and you just shrug. "That's the way it is." Uh...no. How did the rich get so wealthy?

300 million Americans agree to live together by a set of rules, if the rules benefit all of us. Why do the poor and middle class...heck, even upper middle class have to let the Top 1% have everything? Why? How bout we collectively kill the Top 1% and take back the wealth? If you don't want that to happen, create a fairer system where we ALL benefit. Or we'll just have a revolution.

[Dresta]

The money was ALREADY redistributed in an unfair way. The tax rates on rich were lowered to get the rich all the money. Yes, we want the money back.

Your assumptions are off in a lot of ways. The wealth disaprity in this country is just unbelievably ridiculous, and you just shrug. "That's the way it is." Uh...no. How did the rich get so wealthy?

300 million Americans agree to live together by a set of rules, if the rules benefit all of us. Why do the poor and middle class...heck, even upper middle class have to let the Top 1% have everything? Why? How bout we collectively kill the Top 1% and take back the wealth? If you don't want that to happen, create a fairer system where we ALL benefit. Or we'll just have a revolution.

No argument here, just more ad hominem bullcrap (as typical of those bent on making things 'fairer'). It is impossible to create this magical place where all benefit, and it is impossible to make things fairer by granting more powers to the federal government. The rich did not get so wealthy because 'tax rates were lowered' - that is simplistic bollocks.

If you think that a country as vast as the United States can be run fairly by a central authority, then you are living your life so detached from reality that you might as well go and commit yourself.

Here is something written in the 1830s: 'Great wealth and profound misery, big cities, depraved morals, individual selfishness, and complication of interests are among the perils that almost always exist in large states.' (sound like somewhere you know?)

This is why the United States was founded as a confederation of states, and not a huge land-mass governed by a central authority. It is why the states were granted autonomy, and were supposed to have all powers that were not strictly granted to the federal government by the Constitution. This was supposed to allow the United States to gain all the advantages that small states have, while forgoing the weaknesses that are their frequent accompaniment. It isn't my fault the last 100 years have been spent trampling over the rights of states, and arrogating every conceivable power to an overstretched central authority. What do you expect me to do about it? You accuse me of shrugging, but i'm not, i'm merely saying what will make it worse.

A lot of problems could be overcome if people of your ilk could realise that the state is never a force for good, but invariably a force for evil. This has been known by just about every worthwhile political theorist from time immemorial (even Marx's supposed utopia was dependant on the withering away of the state). The problem now is that, as the education system has expanded with democracy far beyond what is needed, it has become awash with mediocrities who can't learn, let alone teach, and so political discourse is so full of white noise that no one knows what to think; they are just overwhelmed with information.

And no, we aren't going to have a revolution: not for a long time. The majority of people are far too satisfied with their current condition to risk their personal safety in that way. People are timid by nature, and most in modern society are pretty comfortable.

[MadeFromDust]

Pretty obvious really: he makes a call to make things 'fairer', obviously implying that the federal government should simply redistribute the money in a fair way. He completely avoids the fact that everyone has a different opinion as to what is 'fair' and so any attempts to make it so must be arbitrary by nature. He also ignores that the expansion of the powers attributed to the federal government have been the biggest factor in making things as bad as they are.
Yeah, it tries, and fails miserably, and then when it fails it claims that something else made it fail, and so tries again and makes everything even worse... and on, and on.

Renaming socialism liberalism does not make it any more viable, sorry to say. People who desperately try to force things to be better, and to improve the condition of man through the power of the state, have routinely created the worst societies throughout history.

Regardless, relying on the meaningless and increasingly blurred liberal/conservative dichotomy is a pretty sure sign of superficial understanding: they just don't stand for anything tangible anymore. Libertarians are the people who propose the most radical change from how things are currently managed, yet they are frequently called conservatives by 'liberals' who are far more conservative than they are (you can only see this if you understand what conservatism actually means, not how it is used by the inanities that shape contemporary political discourse).

Why are you sorry to say? That's spot on. BAM!

[OldSkoolball#52]

Top 1% have everything? Why? How bout we collectively kill the Top 1% and take back the wealth? If you don't want that to happen, create a fairer system where we ALL benefit. Or we'll just have a revolution.

Why are you obsesed with wealth?

If you won 1 billion in the lottery today, would you split it equally among every American?


No. You wouldnt, not in a million years.

You are a hypocrite, and a fhaggot with too much time on his hands, desparately seeking an identity fighting imaginary bad guys (conservatives) and thats how you delude yourself into thinking your life has more significance than being an average, generic, boring, mediocre, unfunny, not handsome man FHAGGOT.


Go find 99 strangers to stand around and kill the 1% of the group that is made up by you loser.