Harrekin
Well-Known Member
"However, the New York Times reports that it was founded with a centrist-liberal orientation"
The New York Times leans towards what political orientation/party?
The truth about minimum wage and income inequality
- Thread starter Rancho Cucamonga
- Start date
The New York Times leans towards what political orientation/party?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
please remind me of WHEN it was founded
nontheist
Well-Known Member
It's only libtards spouting that stupid shit and they can't fucking stand it that no one listens to them.
echelon1k1
New Member
That's an inconvenient truth.... shhhhhhh
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but according to nontheist, this is an awesome group with all the facts. so why would that be inconvenient?
nontheist
Well-Known Member
fap fap fap fap fap
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i suppose that is your way of saying that the new york times is an authoritative source and that center-left groups are the best experts on immigration now.
cool dude!
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Nope just mocking you talking a bunch of shit but saying nothing as usual. Yet again can't back up the stupid shit you say.
echelon1k1
New Member
Bucks just a parrot - Jay Carneys little parrot and Jay is O'dogz little parrot...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sorry if you can't accept that the hate group you love so much was founded by a neo nazi white supremacist.
life goes on. live to help your daddy install another greese trap.
GOD HERE
Well-Known Member
I'm a socialist for a reason. Once upon a time, as embarrassing as it is now to acknowledge, I was a conservative. So trust me, I understand what having no critical thinking skills and needing to have an opinion given to you feels like. In your case being politically stupid is a choice.
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
Tis funny,
All the hub-bub about the left, right, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, tea partier or conspiracy theorist is just everyones take on a handfull of feathers from the same fuckin' bird.
Please proceed, this is better than pay per view.
Peace
Asmallvoice
All the hub-bub about the left, right, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, tea partier or conspiracy theorist is just everyones take on a handfull of feathers from the same fuckin' bird.
Please proceed, this is better than pay per view.
Peace
Asmallvoice
echelon1k1
New Member
You support socialism, but accuse me of having "no critical thinking skills and needing to have an opinion given"... No contradiction there...
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Socialism is not based on critical thinking as much as it is emotional thinking. If you are shooting for utopia and insist on making everyone conform to your way, you should just go full communist. It makes way more sense if you use critical thinking, especially where your economy is concerned.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Healthcare is totally socialist
I mean why treat the poor who may be harboring communicable diseases that could spread and hurt the working population?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You say critical thinking, but you equate "making everyone conform" with "go full communist". I am as opposed (honestly I am way more opposed than you will ever be) to conformity. At least be honest. Socialism doesn't demand conformity, it demands equality. Above all, socialism is opposed to economic coercion. Demanding conformity in the name of equality is damaging to the movement of equality just like demanding conformity in "God's name" was damaging to the church, when actually, Romans 12:2 demands nonconformity. In this way, a socialist will say that socialism has never been tried just as you may say capitalism has never been tried. I'm glad we both value nonconformity though. I'm not preaching, just using an example that is similar from Christianity.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Healthcare is just healthcare. We make it socialist or capitalist but in nature, it's just healthcare. You can't possibly pretend to know why all health care providers are motivated. I wouldn't even make a wild guess as to who is really in it to help and who is in it for job security or the money or the prestige or because the local college had a program. Our delivery systems range from free clinics to the outrageously profit motivated cosmetics.
Just wishing it to be socialist doesn't make it so, I think you also have to click your heels together too.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Society is the way it is because we make the world the way it is. We can make society egalitarian or highly stratified into hierarchical structures of power and dominion. It's just society.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You act as though I'm dissing communism. On a small scale that is your only possible way to have true equality, like in the hippie communes. Social sciences (oxymoron) is pretty much settled on a hundredish being the maximum number of people we can truly give a shit about (enough to give up property/time/effort without minding).
Think of socialism without coercion. You would have no need for a central government, without a need for government and true self rule, you have the Marxist Utopia. Because of human nature, not everyone will play nice. And because everyone might not want the same thing as the socialists in charge they will be "strongly encouraged" to conform. I really don't see it possible to not have a government if we are going to do this large scale. Central planning has to come from somewhere.
You will have to abandon income tax before socialism can truly be tried. It can be done. If you can get our government away from taxing production I will support it, socialist or not.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You make two declarative statements regarding human nature with which I disagree. They are premises and therefore your conclusion isn't even worth reading. Your view seems very narrow to me.
In the first, you generally infer that equality can be enforced but only in small communities. You're inferring this as a premise, as if it is something I can take for granted, such that your overall argument seems deductive. You've created a box, within which you deem debate parameters are exclusively valid. This is called "thinking inside the box".
In the second, you again take for granted that the way you perceive human nature is actually what natural law is. It belies your understanding of what I am arguing which is insulting, since you retort to something negatively, in disagreement, when you don't even grasp what it conveys. It's ok, I'll still patiently explicate your nonsense.
What I am actually arguing, is that inequality is not human nature, it is externally imposed, just as all hierarchies are. This belief that you seem to harbor, that Jefferson was wrong when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" which in many ways defined the American Revolution, I utterly reject. Equality is natural. Socioeconomic stratification is imposed.