The left has gone full retard

[Jorgam]

This is what you've become as a ideology and party. What a disgusting racist wretch. Way to stand on the bodies of the dead to push your anti-white and anti-hetero agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9pHidD8sc

50 people dead and 53 wounded by a tolerant, religion of peace follower and this trash gets up there and makes it about how terrible whites are?

I can't believe these idiot liberals standing around applauding her deriding them for being white. Liberalism truly is a sign of brain damage.

Denounce this bitch!

[Lune]

Yes, BLM whackos are totally representative of the core values of American liberalism.

People with cognitive deficits so profound that they are incapable of even the most basic analytical thinking required to differentiate between exceptions and norms should be rounded up and shot. Oops that statement was so Republican of me.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

politics on the internet makes p99 forumquest look like a conference of theoretical physicists.

I recommend, do not do.

[Jorgam]

Yes, BLM whackos are totally representative of the core values of American liberalism.

People with cognitive deficits so profound that they are incapable of even the most basic analytical thinking required to differentiate between exceptions and norms should be rounded up and shot. Oops that statement was so Republican of me.

Seems that they are very representative of where the left is going. Do you denounce this racist lefty or do you approve or her racist message?

Good dig on the GoP there... deflection noted.

[JurisDictum]

Wackos can get guns easily and commit murder suicides. That is why this happened. I'm sorry you guys get all emotional and want to start deporting the guy in the Falafel cart over it. But this has happened a lot before and will again.

The motivation is arbitrary for the most part. Unless there is communication to an external group, its just another fucking nutcase with a BS justification to kill people and seek glory. The fact this it was ISIS bullshit he looked up on the internet and not something else, is only a relevant fact to the over-emotional alarmists that can't wait to give our freedoms away.

Oh yea, and its all Obama's fault. It would have never happened if Bush was president.

[Daywolf]

You heard her, she's listing out the facts you probably don't know because you're white. So why post, you don't know, she said it right there,. Let the self-lothing begin :D

[Pokesan]

white people can't handle being told they're wrong

[fash]

Where you have the power, physically remove degenerates like this.

[Swish]

cringing, facepalming... what's funny is where people think the moral high ground is.

[Gorillas]

white people can't handle being told they're wrong

Minorities can't ever take responsibility, they always have a mitigating factor

[Swish]

Minorities can't ever take responsibility, they always have a mitigating factor

I used to work in an environment where if you were a white guy you could be told to do anything.

If you were black or asian, you could use it to say "I'm not doing that" - then if there was any insistence just play the race card and call a union guy over to say the management are harassing you.

If you were female you could say you didn't want to lift anything heavy, and if the manager there was male you could make up some bullshit about the manager perving on you or making unwanted advances and call a union guy over.

Total bullshit.

A black somehow-pregnant lesbian? Shit, that's god mode.

[Aesop]

BLACK PREGNANT LESBIAN?

fucking sign me up, I can't wait for that gravy train.

[maskedmelon]

BLM is as embarrassing for the rational minds on the left as Westboro is for those on the right. The absurdity is how politicians have managed to frame the left-right debate about trivial social issues that don't matter one fuck in the grand scheme of things.

Feel bad that your life sucks? Work harder.

Don't like same sex marriage? Don't attend.

Angry that madmen do bad things? Lock them up.

Sad that other people kills their babies? Offer to adopt them.

Feel that you are consistently treated unfairly? Kill yourself, you've already lost.

Democrats perpetuate bigotry and republicans perpetuate economic inequality. Democrats teach people that their failures are beyond their control when hey are not and republicans teach people that the market will set them free when it will not.

Dwelling on differences is never a path to harmony, but ignoring them is a path of insanity. Individuals operating more than two standard deviations above the mean will always vastly outperform the rest and failure to adequately restrict the rewards of success will necessarily result in a damaging concentration of resources.

I am all over the place this morning and cranky to boot...

[Ahldagor]

BLM is as embarrassing for the rational minds on the left as Westboro is for those on the right. The absurdity is how politicians have managed to frame the left-right debate about trivial social issues that don't matter one fuck in the grand scheme of things.

Feel bad that your life sucks? Work harder.

Don't like same sex marriage? Don't attend.

Angry that madmen do bad things? Lock them up.

Sad that other people kills their babies? Offer to adopt them.

Feel that you are consistently treated unfairly? Kill yourself, you've already lost.

Democrats perpetuate bigotry and republicans perpetuate economic inequality. Democrats teach people that their failures are beyond their control when hey are not and republicans teach people that the market will set them free when it will not.

Dwelling on differences is never a path to harmony, but ignoring them is a path of insanity. Individuals operating more than two standard deviations above the mean will always vastly outperform the rest and failure to adequately restrict the rewards of success will necessarily result in a damaging concentration of resources.

I am all over the place this morning and cranky to boot...

Well said. The over arcing moral of personal responsibility is dying and reverting to those invisible heroes, saviors via ex machina that don't show up when absolutely needed and are nice buzzwords for the politics. The idea of patience is wasted on current generations too, but the sad thing is that much of the social progress over the past century in the US is fragile and is easily undone by an idiot with a microphone that gets attention because they have the microphone and not because of their rhetoric.

[Daywolf]

much of the social progress over the past century in the US is fragile and is easily undone by an idiot with a microphone that gets attention because they have the microphone and not because of their rhetoric.
Who is 0bama?
I'll take Recent US Presidents for $500

[sOurDieSel]

A black somehow-pregnant lesbian? Shit, that's god mode.

rofl

[sOurDieSel]

Feel bad that your life sucks? Work harder.

The American Dream is purely fiction at this point.

Don't like same sex marriage? Don't attend.

Tell that to the bakers that are forced to do wedding cakes, photographers forced to take pictures, etc.

Angry that madmen do bad things? Lock them up.

Costs way to much money and perpetuates the cycle of statism. Put them down.

Sad that other people kills their babies? Offer to adopt them.

Don't you know that its 2016 and the two biggest issues are 'dead fetuses & shilling for Israel?'

Feel that you are consistently treated unfairly? Kill yourself, you've already lost.

Nihilism is easy to start but hard to finish.



The path to harmony starts with a homogeneous society.

[Nihilist_santa]

The path to harmony starts with a homogeneous society.

Diversity+Proximity= Conflict. Always has. You wont have any divisive social issues if you get rid of the "melting pot" idea that has been forced solely on the white west.

People dont understand how when a new colony was setup in some tribal land they would start moving the tribes around so that they would be warring with each other and couldn't unify against the occupying government. Its the same old page from the tired playbook but people living in the world of ideas will never see the reality before them.

http://i.imgur.com/HI0XlA1.jpg

[MrSparkle001]

This is more about how absolutely retarded college kids are.

[maskedmelon]

Diversity+Proximity= Conflict. Always has. You wont have any divisive social issues if you get rid of the "melting pot" idea that has been forced solely on the white west.

People dont understand how when a new colony was setup in some tribal land they would start moving the tribes around so that they would be warring with each other and couldn't unify against the occupying government. Its the same old page from the tired playbook but people living in the world of ideas will never see the reality before them.

http://i.imgur.com/HI0XlA1.jpg

Not to start a semantics debate, ^^ but I would say the 'melting pot' analogy is fine. It's the newer 'salad bowel' bullshit that needs to go. The idea behind the melting pot is that there is one cohesive culture forged of various elements and made stronger by them, like steel. Undesirable elements are purged in the smelt ^^

Culture cannot develop with all sorts of disjointed elements standing on their own. New peoples are welcome to bring their ideas and if appropriate they'll be incorporated into the larger culture. If not, they'll just become slag.

That's how it works in Japan ^^ Immigrants adopt Japanese culture or they have a VERY difficult time and end up leaving. Conversely, Japanese are happy to adopt and accept new ideas if they easily fit within prevailing culture.

[Lune]

Not to start a semantics debate, ^^ but I would say the 'melting pot' analogy is fine. It's the newer 'salad bowel' bullshit that needs to go. The idea behind the melting pot is that there is one cohesive culture forged of various elements and made stronger by them, like steel. Undesirable elements are purged in the smelt ^^

Culture cannot develop with all sorts of disjointed elements standing on their own. New peoples are welcome to bring their ideas and if appropriate they'll be incorporated into the larger culture. If not, they'll just become slag.

[Jorgam]

Not to start a semantics debate, ^^ but I would say the 'melting pot' analogy is fine. It's the newer 'salad bowel' bullshit that needs to go. The idea behind the melting pot is that there is one cohesive culture forged of various elements and made stronger by them, like steel. Undesirable elements are purged in the smelt ^^

Culture cannot develop with all sorts of disjointed elements standing on their own. New peoples are welcome to bring their ideas and if appropriate they'll be incorporated into the larger culture. If not, they'll just become slag.

That's how it works in Japan ^^ Immigrants adopt Japanese culture or they have a VERY difficult time and end up leaving. Conversely, Japanese are happy to adopt and accept new ideas if they easily fit within prevailing culture.

You are correct. The melting pot of America is broken and done for. Once upon a time people came here and gave up parts of their former cultures in order to blend into and become whatever it is/was to be American. This doesn't happen anymore, at least not from those illegally entering or being given asylum/refugee status. These sub-cultures come in, deny our majority culture, denounce us as racists and demand special set asides to accommodate their culture. And stupid assholes who want votes force us via taxation to bend over backwards to accommodate them. Businesses also do this. If you happen to notice that these people want only to benefit from the perks of being physically located in the USA, while still being loyal to their former countries, you're a xenophobe racist hater. Go to almost any other country and protest for shit to be typed in your language, when that is not the countries language and see what you get.

Did you know that English is the national language in Belize? Can't have that in America, cause that is racist to expect people to learn English..

Something has to change.

[Lurikeen]

The "melting pot" in American culture died after the 1950s when progressive liberals found that race (aka "identity politics") politics won votes.

[Lurikeen]

And, I disagree with the OP title. The left has ALWAYS been retard.

[Jorgam]

And, I disagree with the OP title. The left has ALWAYS been retard.

I won't deny that. It just amazes me that not matter how far over the edge they seem to have gone before, they somehow manage to top it.

[Lurikeen]

I won't deny that. It just amazes me that not matter how far over the edge they seem to have gone before, they somehow manage to top it.

Like

[Lune]

The P99 elf conservatives sure are butthurt lately. Must be hard to see your party utterly implode and end up with a former Democrat/Clinton contributor/reality TV star and under-performing businessman as nominee.

Then again, when Clinton wins we're still getting the kind of pro-business corporate bootlicker you've been dreaming about, you're just too stupid to realize it.

http://i.imgur.com/GMgJ1B2.jpg

[Pokesan]

when Clinton wins we're still getting the kind of pro-business corporate bootlicker you've been dreaming about, you're just too stupid to realize it.

[Daywolf]

Thread title has hate speech, rest of this thread has hate speech in it.

You all should be ashamed for continuing this thread

bump

http://i.imgur.com/hBrTgcD.gif

And then there's just downright hilarious.

[JurisDictum]

The P99 elf conservatives sure are butthurt lately. Must be hard to see your party utterly implode and end up with a former Democrat/Clinton contributor/reality TV star and under-performing businessman as nominee.

Then again, when Clinton wins we're still getting the kind of pro-business corporate bootlicker you've been dreaming about, you're just too stupid to realize it.

http://i.imgur.com/GMgJ1B2.jpg

You know, all jokes aside, sucking up to Hillary has worked very well for some disaffected groups. She might not change the country much -- but she'll improve things for the groups that help her. It is why all the black organizations in the south went heavy for her.

[Jorgam]

Thread title has hate speech, rest of this thread has hate speech in it.

You all should be ashamed for continuing this thread

The title and thread are appropriate for the racist pos that I posted a link to in the opening post.

Did you even watch it?

Shining a light on real racists and hate speech is not something to be ashamed of.

[Pokesan]

The title and thread are appropriate for the racist pos that I posted a link to in the opening post.

Did you even watch it?

Shining a light on real racists and hate speech is not something to be ashamed of.

I don't think you know why racism is bad.

Thoughts and actions my good chum.

[Archalen]

The girl in the video isn't technically racist by many definitions (it's usually defined as within the context of racial superiority, not just generalizations). I personally can't stand the "white people" comments but it's qualitatively different speech than classic racism.

[Jorgam]

The girl in the video isn't technically racist by many definitions (it's usually defined as within the context of racial superiority, not just generalizations). I personally can't stand the "white people" comments but it's qualitatively different speech than classic racism.

So if a white person was up there saying I'm nervous to get up here because there are so many blacks in the crowd, that wouldn't be racist? If a white person stood up there and said you probably don't know these "facts" simply because of the color of your skin to blacks, that wouldn't be racist? I guess it is not racist because she is a bi hispanic female leftist and that reduces it to just being offensive..

Any time someone says something like this about white people, just insert any other type of person that isn't white, say it again and then decide if it sounds like racism or hate speech. Same goes for straight males. The only group legally allowed to be discriminated against and hated publicaly.

[Pokesan]

So if a white person was up there saying I'm nervous to get up here because there are so many blacks in the crowd, that wouldn't be racist? If a white person stood up there and said you probably don't know these "facts" simply because of the color of your skin to blacks, that wouldn't be racist? I guess it is not racist because she is a bi hispanic female leftist and that reduces it to just being offensive..

Any time someone says something like this about white people, just insert any other type of person that isn't white, say it again and then decide if it sounds like racism or hate speech. Same goes for straight males. The only group legally allowed to be discriminated against and hated publicaly.

Your idea of racism is akin to namecalling and hurt feelings.

It's not surprising you believe whites are the real victims.

[Tenlaar]

It's so hard being a white dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rnFlQAvk8U

[Secrets]

Replace the word "Nazi" with "Jew", and then ask yourself "Do I sound like a fucking Muslim?"

[Daywolf]

I don't think you know why racism is bad.

Thoughts and actions my good chum.
That was a thought and action. They took over a memorial in wake of the tragedy to tell them there that were attending that it was a race issue and that the whites standing there were clueless. They were just pushing a political narrative which had nothing to do with the shooting. She was up there talking down to the victims of the shooting, those there that were at the club etc. and those there in solidarity to the victims.

That's an action. It's not an illegal action, but it's certainly sociopathic and she should have been booed off the stage at that moment as a counter-action. But of course their BLM movement uses fascist tactics to fear the shame onto people so to not speak out against their cause.

And what's the issue about thoughts? You don't want to go down that road of thought police kind of stuff. Everyone has all kinds of thoughts, all kinds, and what differentiates us from the animals is that we have the ability to filter thoughts and not act on them, even to dismiss our own thoughts as false. Only robots always think within their programming.

Replace the word "Nazi" with "Jew", and then ask yourself "Do I sound like a fucking Muslim?"Speaking of Nazi's ... aww my SS guard conviction thread was removed. Whaeverrr
heh

[Jorgam]

Your idea of racism is akin to namecalling and hurt feelings.

It's not surprising you believe whites are the real victims.

Because no one who isn't white can be racist right? Ignorance is bliss!

[Pokesan]

That was a thought and action. They took over a memorial in wake of the tragedy to tell them there that were attending that it was a race issue and that the whites standing there were clueless. They were just pushing a political narrative which had nothing to do with the shooting. She was up there talking down to the victims of the shooting, those there that were at the club etc. and those there in solidarity to the victims.

That's an action. It's not an illegal action, but it's certainly sociopathic and she should have been booed off the stage at that moment as a counter-action. But of course their BLM movement uses fascist tactics to fear the shame onto people so to not speak out against their cause.

And what's the issue about thoughts? You don't want to go down that road of thought police kind of stuff. Everyone has all kinds of thoughts, all kinds, and what differentiates us from the animals is that we have the ability to filter thoughts and not act on them, even to dismiss our own thoughts as false. Only robots always think within their programming.

Speaking of Nazi's ... aww my SS guard conviction thread was removed. Whaeverrr
heh

saying isn't doing. it's speech. some people got their feelings hurt.

there is a huge difference between being harmed and being offended.

[Pokesan]

Because no one who isn't white can be racist right? Ignorance is bliss!

weak strawman my good chum!

[Zuranthium]

I used to work in an environment where if you were a white guy you could be told to do anything.

A black somehow-pregnant lesbian? Shit, that's god mode.

You have no clue whatsoever what it is like to be such a thing.

The opportunities given to people based on these two things are entirely disparate, regardless of your bad optics thinking people can somehow "play the minority card" to gain some kind of special advantage. Yeah, maybe someone won't ask a pregnant woman to do a certain physically draining task. That's just called respect. What exactly was the white guy being told to do, AT WORK, that was such a terrible ordeal for them? In reality, nothing.

Being a white hetero male factually makes a person more likely to be hired, promoted, given a loan, etc. Not to mention being born into money. They are the most privileged group in existence. That's what our culture has built and the long-standing misogyny and subtle (or not so subtle) modes of discrimination against minorities have directly held them down in comparison to this ruling class. Just look at who gets cast in films and who owns the businesses, for starters.

The current outrage over this is basically built around the majority realizing they are no longer a majority and will have more competition if others actually being given equality opportunity. That and just general ignorance.

Everyone here needs to watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqQ9LxzTwM), for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

[Daywolf]

saying isn't doing. it's speech. some people got their feelings hurt.

there is a huge difference between being harmed and being offended.
Saying is a "doing" otherwise there would be no protections for it at all. It's absolutely an action just as much as screaming fire in a movie theater is an action even if there really is no fire. People are sometimes put away in prison for speech, especially in Europe right now as far as the West goes. Inciting a riot is illegal in the US, and that comes from words.

The only difference is what is illegal and what isn't. So far it's not illegal to be a dumbass and spew out racist hate speech like they did at this public memorial service. It's your right to be a dumbass, as it should be. It doesn't matter if you do or don't do what you say, the saying is still an action, which is a doing.

And didn't you know? A word word word, word is a verb. I said a word word word, word is a verb (as well as talking and speaking etc).
Verb:
1.
a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.

Example: She spoke to the victims of a tragic murder and racially charged the solemn memorial with hate speech against the very people that were in attendance.

bang and blame (https://youtu.be/8FNfB6WfwM4)


But to add, and in conclusion, there is a time and place for it, in the forum of public debate and ideas, and they have been spewing this crap out all week everywhere at everyone. Did BLM really need to go to a memorial service and start trying to shame people in attendance due to their skin color? Seriously, it's a deeply sociopathic action on their part to do that to them.

[sOurDieSel]

You're a White Male! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0diJNybk0Mw)

[Pokesan]

Saying is a "doing" otherwise there would be no protections for it at all. It's absolutely an action just as much as screaming fire in a movie theater is an action even if there really is no fire. People are sometimes put away in prison for speech, especially in Europe right now as far as the West goes. Inciting a riot is illegal in the US, and that comes from words.

The only difference is what is illegal and what isn't. So far it's not illegal to be a dumbass and spew out racist hate speech like they did at this public memorial service. It's your right to be a dumbass, as it should be. It doesn't matter if you do or don't do what you say, the saying is still an action, which is a doing.

And didn't you know? A word word word, word is a verb. I said a word word word, word is a verb (as well as talking and speaking etc).
Verb:
1.
a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.

Example: She spoke to the victims of a tragic murder and racially charged the solemn memorial with hate speech against the very people that were in attendance.

bang and blame (https://youtu.be/8FNfB6WfwM4)


But to add, and in conclusion, there is a time and place for it, in the forum of public debate and ideas, and they have been spewing this crap out all week everywhere at everyone. Did BLM really need to go to a memorial service and start trying to shame people in attendance due to their skin color? Seriously, it's a deeply sociopathic action on their part to do that to them.

Torture grammar all you want, it won't tranfigure speech into action. Words remain words, deeds remain deeds.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Yeah my friend told me Everquest is a white mans game.

[Daywolf]

Torture grammar all you want, it won't tranfigure speech into action. Words remain words, deeds remain deeds.
Then this logic applies to yelling "fire!" in a movie theater when there is no fire as it should never be illegal. After all, by your own definition it's not an action, not a deed, because it's just words.

So this is what the left is teaching now? No wonder the Donnald can get so many death threats on social media sites and it's never removed. Yet groups like trannys for trump gets deleted by the left, because somehow those words are just wrong.

The left is thinking somehow they have become the moral police, though does not apply to themselves. It's not a gay or straight or racial or religious or any other issue than a leftist ideological issue by result of mental health issues, fully.

[Pokesan]

yes, restricted speech exists.

what

[Daywolf]

yes, restricted speech exists.

what
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/dumped-transgender-trump-facebook-page-suspended/
It sure is. Unless it's the "correct" ideology of course. I may not be gay, but I have enough empathy to recognize that standing up at a memorial and pointing fingers into the crowd to blame and/or belittle them is heartless and inhuman.

Outside of such an event I could say: hey, just say no to gun free zones (regardless of political party or etc.). But even then, that's not entirely the issue. But what does any issue have place at a memorial service, other than that of the tragic loss of life in this case? To score political points and directly shame the mourners at the event? It's just words that hurt peoples feelings?

It's about trying to make political gains upon a racial narrative at cost to the well being of others at a place/event of healing. It's downright shameful :(

[JurisDictum]

Everyone here needs to watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqQ9LxzTwM), for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

I thought it was a pretty good video. It argues for utilitarianism as a moral philosophy -- which I've always considered the best view. It is what people do whether they acknowledge it or not. When they decide if something is moral or not, they weigh the consequences of their actions.

The kind of thinking he is discussing is basically the deontological view. Somethings are right, others are wrong. I associate this (like he did) with people obsessed with being a good person -- and rationalizing their actions to be consistent with their image as a good person. The concept of more moral or less moral is alien to them. It is all either moral or not.

It was pretty cool how he associated the unwillingness to explore certain moral inquiries as a defense mechanism. But it might not be able to hold up as well as the rest of the video. People tend to be skeptical of information that contradicts what they believe (esp. conservatives). So it may not be a defense in all cases...just typical human behavior.

[fash]

Everyone here needs to watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCqQ9LxzTwM), for starters, to gain a better understanding of exactly why this quoted mentality is ridiculous and wrong.

Horrible video. Its ethics are inconsistent, and the first minute is filled with assumptions you see in the majority of leftist propaganda, specifically about sexism in this video. Also, it's futile to apply logic to rhetoric. That's the autistes' downfall. People (besides autistes) don't deduce that femfrequency implies gamers are sexual assailants. People have an emotional reaction to her rhetoric and either agree or disagree for non-rational reasons. Reasoning and truth aren't part of this process. You rarely hear feminists or leftists have honest conversations about the patriarchy and its empirical effects. Their rhetoric is primarily about my feels.

Here's how cultural marxists have worked for decades:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!”
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”

That's from a meeting of 2nd wave feminists (the NOW) in 1969. And your modern feminists/SJWs are a far cry worse. You see this same rhetoric in other egalitarians e.g. wrt race. These people are enemies to civilization and need to be stopped with violent force.

[Lune]

Just look at who gets cast in films and who owns the businesses, for starters.

Jewish people?

They are the most privileged group in existence. That's what our culture has built and the long-standing misogyny and subtle (or not so subtle) modes of discrimination against minorities have directly held them down in comparison to this ruling class.

See, in saying this, you imply it's us doing all the holding down, making them work in the fields while we sit on the porch drinking sweet tea. How exactly have we held down Asians and Jews (in recent times)? Both those minorities outperform whites, and the latter is proportionately more represented in the "ruling class" than any other group. If you recognize that some cultures are able to thrive and reach parity with whites, then you necessarily cannot blame whitey for 100% of the inability of other cultures to thrive.

Additionally, what good does that statement do? Ok, 'whites' in general are born with enormous privilege. That's an incredibly racist statement. If you generalized any other trait to an entire group besides whites based on the color of their skin that would be a reprehensible fucking statement. The fact that you're targeting the 'ruling class' doesn't make bigotry suddenly okay, and it just shows you don't really dig into why bigotry is wrong in the first place. What about all the whites who grew up in abusive drug-filled impoverished households with parents and communities who didn't care? What happens when they somehow manage to beat the odds and go to college, only to be told to check their privilege?

The only type of judgments we should be making are those based on individual character and for which we have evidence. Applying systematic judgments to a group based on an unconnected trait is wrong. It's wrong when we do it to white people, and it's wrong when we do it to black people. Even if we know a certain culture tends to have certain behaviors, cognitions, and traits, it's still a character evaluation, not a skin-color evaluation.

[Pokesan]

culture is a magic word that allows you to say all racial inequality is their(usually black people) own fault without having to get beaten up for your awful opinion.

[Nihilist_santa]

culture is a magic word that allows you to say all racial inequality is their(usually black people) own fault without having to get beaten up for your awful opinion.

Pokesan is not a race realist. He thinks everyone is the same. Please don't become a Dr you will get someone killed.

This is an interesting clip from a documentary about the Chinese mining operations in Africa. This is a 2 min clip of a Chinese dude basically laying it out to the African blacks.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=285_1460621843

http://i.imgur.com/qsnvGww.jpg

[Lune]

culture is a magic word that allows you to say all racial inequality is their(usually black people) own fault without having to get beaten up for your awful opinion.

It's your inability to separate the two concepts that's awful, and your willingness to frame this in reductive, black and white thinking. I've never claimed "all racial inequality" comes from culture, just that racism doesn't tell the whole story and culture is probably a larger factor, and it explains so much about these concepts.

Culture affects a person profoundly, down to the way the prefrontal cortex is wired (which governs many processes critical to ethics and social function).

Explain, for example, how Jewish populations have managed to be so successful for thousands of years in spite of slavery, persecution, expulsion, exclusion, and extermination. Thousands of years of 'racism', yet they always come out on top. Is there an explanation besides culture? I can't think of one. And if culture can at least partially account for their success, then why can't it explain hardships among other groups?

[Nihilist_santa]

It's your inability to separate the two concepts that's awful, and your willingness to frame this in reductive, black and white thinking. I've never claimed "all racial inequality" comes from culture, just that racism doesn't tell the whole story and culture is probably a larger factor, and it explains so much about these concepts.

Culture affects a person profoundly, down to the way the prefrontal cortex is wired (which governs many processes critical to ethics and social function).

Explain, for example, how Jewish populations have managed to be so successful for thousands of years in spite of slavery, persecution, expulsion, exclusion, and extermination. Thousands of years of 'racism', yet they always come out on top. Is there an explanation besides culture? I can't think of one. And if culture can at least partially account for their success, then why can't it explain hardships among other groups?


Also the very racism practiced by Jews themselves could in part have lead to some of their cultural success. Their culture is very insular and heavily influenced by racial and cultural reasoning.

[Archalen]

So if a white person was up there saying I'm nervous to get up here because there are so many blacks in the crowd, that wouldn't be racist? If a white person stood up there and said you probably don't know these "facts" simply because of the color of your skin to blacks, that wouldn't be racist? I guess it is not racist because she is a bi hispanic female leftist and that reduces it to just being offensive..

Any time someone says something like this about white people, just insert any other type of person that isn't white, say it again and then decide if it sounds like racism or hate speech. Same goes for straight males. The only group legally allowed to be discriminated against and hated publicaly.

I know what the implications are of what I said. That's why I refrain from calling Donald Trump racist, because his supporters are often right when they say that his statements aren't technically racist. If you take superiority out of the equation and make it a thing about generalizing through race, then a lot more comments (including hers) become racist. And if that's a sufficient qualifier for racism then racial profiling in of itself is definitely racist.

[JurisDictum]

Jewish people?



See, in saying this, you imply it's us doing all the holding down, making them work in the fields while we sit on the porch drinking sweet tea. How exactly have we held down Asians and Jews (in recent times)? Both those minorities outperform whites, and the latter is proportionately more represented in the "ruling class" than any other group. If you recognize that some cultures are able to thrive and reach parity with whites, then you necessarily cannot blame whitey for 100% of the inability of other cultures to thrive.

Additionally, what good does that statement do? Ok, 'whites' in general are born with enormous privilege. That's an incredibly racist statement. If you generalized any other trait to an entire group besides whites based on the color of their skin that would be a reprehensible fucking statement. The fact that you're targeting the 'ruling class' doesn't make bigotry suddenly okay, and it just shows you don't really dig into why bigotry is wrong in the first place. What about all the whites who grew up in abusive drug-filled impoverished households with parents and communities who didn't care? What happens when they somehow manage to beat the odds and go to college, only to be told to check their privilege?

The only type of judgments we should be making are those based on individual character and for which we have evidence. Applying systematic judgments to a group based on an unconnected trait is wrong. It's wrong when we do it to white people, and it's wrong when we do it to black people. Even if we know a certain culture tends to have certain behaviors, cognitions, and traits, it's still a character evaluation, not a skin-color evaluation.

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

[Pokesan]

It's your inability to separate the two concepts that's awful, and your willingness to frame this in reductive, black and white thinking. I've never claimed "all racial inequality" comes from culture, just that racism doesn't tell the whole story and culture is probably a larger factor, and it explains so much about these concepts.

Culture affects a person profoundly, down to the way the prefrontal cortex is wired (which governs many processes critical to ethics and social function).

Explain, for example, how Jewish populations have managed to be so successful for thousands of years in spite of slavery, persecution, expulsion, exclusion, and extermination. Thousands of years of 'racism', yet they always come out on top. Is there an explanation besides culture? I can't think of one. And if culture can at least partially account for their success, then why can't it explain hardships among other groups?

Doubling down aside, is there anything useful that can be done by making the distinction?

[Nihilist_santa]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

Privilege is a relative term. It is relative to the culture and race. Would I be privileged as a white in Japan or China? I get that was your point sort of but you tried to make this solely about whites and america as if that is a bad thing. Also the notion that its best to be white "currently" is changing. Mostly because of suicidal altruism on the part of whites. A sort of cultural nihilism. The thing is you cant recognize your own bias. If we were talking about native Chinese becoming a minority in their own country the left would be throwing benefits and galas to "Save the Chinese" but because it is whites being overthrown demographically you stand there cheering it on.

[Raev]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

Life isn't fair, and it would be boring if we were all clones.

[Lune]

What people are actually saying is: its best to have white skin in America currently. The sooner you all stop inanely arguing with this fucking obviously true point, the sooner they will shut up and move on to something else.

They found that when they introduced groups of privileged people to information about their privileged -- the reaction is defensive. They start thinking about all the ways in their individual life that they were not privileged. Look at Mitt Romney attempt to deal with the assertion he was privileged. He action got on stage with his wife and tried to argue he didn't have it that good!

The problem is that isn't what they are arguing. It's that whites have privilege, and it's our responsibility to make it right and elevate everybody else. It is not. What I can get behind is pointing out specific instances of racism and real, actual oppression (ie, housing discrimination, white flight), and demanding those be corrected. Not punishing whites for thriving in their native country.

Doubling down aside, is there anything useful that can be done by making the distinction?

Creating policy that emphasizes integration rather than coexistence, trying to make sure immigrants do not form parallel societies and refuse to assimilate, and that native citizens do not alienate them with racism and xenophobia. Also recognizing that immigration must be kept at a manageable level, enough to accommodate integration rather than colonization.

[Pokesan]

Creating policy that emphasizes integration rather than coexistence, trying to make sure immigrants do not form parallel societies and refuse to assimilate, and that native citizens do not alienate them with racism and xenophobia. Also recognizing that immigration must be kept at a manageable level, enough to accommodate integration rather than colonization.

All that with just one word?

[sOurDieSel]

instances of racism and real, actual oppression (ie, housing discrimination, white flight),

lol, So White people running away from 3rd worlders is now oppression. We all know the first steps to oppressing a group of people start with not wanting to live anywhere near them and avoiding contact.

[Jorgam]

lol, So White people running away from 3rd worlders is now oppression. We all know the first steps to oppressing a group of people start with not wanting to live anywhere near them and avoiding contact.

No freedom of association in the lefts vision of utopia. Didn't you know?

[Daywolf]

I was oppressing the gang members chasing me with knives in LA because I bailed LA during white flight (late 80's). Bullets literally zipping by my head one night, but I had the gall to oppress them by leaving.
Tales of an oppressor from FEMA region 9. F* the cities!

[Jorgam]

I was oppressing the gang members chasing me with knives in LA because I bailed LA during white flight (late 80's). Bullets literally zipping by my head one night, but I had the gall to oppress them by leaving.
Tales of an oppressor from FEMA region 9. F* the cities!

How very privileged of you to deny those gang bangers your possessions! Just another example of white, patriarchal privilege! You need some diversity sensitivity re-education classes I think.

[Daywolf]

How very privileged of you to deny those gang bangers your possessions! Just another example of white, patriarchal privilege! You need some diversity sensitivity re-education classes I think.It was a drug rage I forced them into while walking by minding my own business (i.e oppressing them). I oppressively ignored them as I walked by, though secretly studied them with peripheral vision so underhandedly. When they came up behind me, they didn't want anything other than to deservingly knife me because the oppressive way I looked to them.

After a three block sprint, my oppression was amplified as the six of them became winded and gave up chase, my great speed gave me an unfair advantage. I ratted them out to a trucker at a gas station who snitched to the cops on his CB radio. I'm so glad they were never caught, they could have wrongly been jailed for my horrible oppression of them. Two years later I sealed their fate, I left LA. I live with the shame of what I did to them :(

[Pokesan]

itt peckerwood circlejerk

shame edit

and that native citizens do not alienate them with racism and xenophobia.

[Zuranthium]

Jewish people?

No, white people. White people are the ones who have been most frequently given the roles and the high-power positions behind the camera in film. They are held us as "the ideal human" in our culture. This extends to many other realms of business as well.

How exactly have we held down Asians and Jews (in recent times)? Both those minorities outperform whites, and the latter is proportionately more represented in the "ruling class" than any other group.

Logical fallacy. Jews mostly are white. As for Asians, they are hardly more represented. Their median state of education is higher, though, yes. This is because Asians were not brought to America as slaves and because their culture very much promotes being extremely studious.

I was oppressing the gang members chasing me with knives in LA because I bailed LA during white flight (late 80's). Bullets literally zipping by my head one night, but I had the gall to oppress them by leaving.

Nobody was chasing you with knives and bullets were not literally zipping by your head. Moreover, you are missing the picture here. What do you think creates this kind of civil unrest? Every living being is concerned with this own survival. When people have no other options in life and are told by society they they are "less than", they turn to such means. We need to remove these systemic problems from being a thing in a first place.

lol, So White people running away from 3rd worlders is now oppression. We all know the first steps to oppressing a group of people start with not wanting to live anywhere near them and avoiding contact.

Calling poor people and/or black people "3rd worlders". Just pathetic.

Look, obviously people don't want to live in a very dangerous area. But actively segregating for reasons aside from that is a very real thing and it has specifically created these areas of higher violence, while propagating wrongful racist notions and class-ist notions about entire groups of people. Especially since the media and conservative organizations specifically play-up these instances, creating more fear and misunderstanding.

----

Horrible video. Its ethics are inconsistent, and the first minute is filled with assumptions you see in the majority of leftist propaganda, specifically about sexism in this video.

There are no assumptions there and the ethics are not inconsistent. These are things that factually happen. Your outright dismissal of it and trying to call every liberal an autist is shows how ignorant you are about you are and unable to look at your own ingrained misconceptions.

Here's how cultural marxists have worked for decades:


That's from a meeting of 2nd wave feminists (the NOW) in 1969. And your modern feminists/SJWs are a far cry worse. You see this same rhetoric in other egalitarians e.g. wrt race. These people are enemies to civilization and need to be stopped with violent force.

No, that isn't how it works. You blatantly created a fabrication of how YOU think it works, in your own wrong viewpoint. So sad to see this inane mentality on display. Especially as you call for "violent force" against individuals who want equality. You are the problem. You, are the problem. You think you are a "good guy". You're not. The video I posted was directly talking about your mentality. But you haven't yet connected the dots. Hopefully at some point in your life, you will.

[Daywolf]

Nobody was chasing you with knives and bullets were not literally zipping by your head.Libtard much, freak? You would have been on your knees pissing your panties, obviously. You're not prepared for the real world. You have no idea life outside of your mommies basement. It's not just that you play a fantasy game, but that you live in a fantasy world where mommy protects you from the imaginary monsters outside your basement.

100% fact and being shot at and being chased with knives, the attempted muggings, all shit that happened repeatedly. That's Los Angeles, always has been and always will be until the damn place slides into the ocean or leaves a big crater.

[Lune]

If Daywolf moved into my neighborhood I would pack up and move

[Jorgam]

If Daywolf moved into my neighborhood I would pack up and move

If Day was a minority, you'd be a racist for that. Welcome to leftism in the USA! Wear it proudly.

[Jorgam]

[/QUOTE]
No, that isn't how it works. You blatantly created a fabrication of how YOU think it works, in your own wrong viewpoint. So sad to see this inane mentality on display. Especially as you call for "violent force" against individuals who want equality. You are the problem. You, are the problem. You think you are a "good guy". You're not. The video I posted was directly talking about your mentality. But you haven't yet connected the dots. Hopefully at some point in your life, you will.[/QUOTE]

And you are the authority on who is the "Good" guy eh? SJW fanatics in our society think they are the good guys and I'd bet you think so too. You're what is wrong with this society. You don't want equality, you want totalitarianism that elevates what you feel is right and true to be the only way of thought. You'd be the first to put people into cattle cars for not agreeing with what you think and it is clear by what you're espousing. Deny it all you want, but you lefties are all the same. Think how I think and approve or else.

[Pokesan]

do SJWs have any real power

[Jorgam]

do SJWs have any real power

They are bringing down the heads of major universities, pressuring businesses and assaulting Trump supporters with impunity. That is too much power already imo.

[Pokesan]

They are bringing down the heads of major universities, pressuring businesses and assaulting Trump supporters with impunity. That is too much power already imo.

there's an SJW behind every bush!

[Jorgam]

there's an SJW behind every bush!

Make your jokes, it's alright. When you are ready to accept the reality of how straight up awful and potentially dangerous the left's cultivated groups, like the SJW and BLM crowd are, we'll be here for you.

[Pokesan]

Make your jokes, it's alright. When you are ready to accept the reality of how straight up awful and potentially dangerous the left's cultivated groups, like the SJW and BLM crowd are, we'll be here for you.

we must remain ever vigilant against the SJW menace

see something say something

[Zuranthium]

Libtard much, freak? You would have been on your knees pissing your panties, obviously. You're not prepared for the real world. You have no idea life outside of your mommies basement. It's not just that you play a fantasy game, but that you live in a fantasy world where mommy protects you from the imaginary monsters outside your basement.

100% fact and being shot at and being chased with knives, the attempted muggings, all shit that happened repeatedly. That's Los Angeles, always has been and always will be until the damn place slides into the ocean or leaves a big crater.

I've lived in Los Angeles for 8 years and I moved out of my parents house the day after I graduated High School, putting myself through college and doing everything in my adult life without any help from them whatsoever.

Yet again another example of no reasoning or actual knowledge with your statement here. Just lots of false assumptions, in service of holding up your own wrong viewpoint. Obviously there is crime in LA, yes. That has nothing to do with the skewed mentality people have, though. Wrongfully blaming others and enacting prejudge and outdated laws, which allows the problems that create violence to propagate. Trying to ignore something that has been created as a result of the policies of the United States, and then blaming the people who have had to live under the worst of it, creates an endless circle of hate and suffering.

SJW fanatics in our society think they are the good guys and I'd bet you think so too. You're what is wrong with this society. You don't want equality, you want totalitarianism that elevates what you feel is right and true to be the only way of thought. You'd be the first to put people into cattle cars for not agreeing with what you think and it is clear by what you're espousing. Deny it all you want, but you lefties are all the same. Think how I think and approve or else.

This is completely wrong. Leftist mentality dictates rationalism, education, and peace. There's a reason why people tend to become more liberal as they become more educated. Nobody of this mindset wants to put people into cattle cars for not agreeing. That's the conservative mentality and something the right wing has historically always enacted, as opposed to the left wing.

Apparently you think Canada, Australia, and Western Europe are all Totalitarian and are robbing people. You would be wrong, they are not. They are in fact more stable and informed and happy; they laugh at how barbaric much of America is. The right-wing lie about "liberal policy robbing freedom" is nothing but bullshit brainwashing. It's a mentality based upon living in a selfish shell, a fear of maybe having less wealth personally or being forced to integrate with "lesser people", as a result of giving opportunities to others who are necessary parts of society and are equal individuals.

The sad part is that this brainwashing actually holds down many people who think they are getting more freedom as a result of what they believe in. The less well-off conservative populace has been bred into thinking that rallying against "outsiders" and "equality" is the American thing to do; that their own less fortunate lives are the result of those dirty non-Christians, non-heteros, non-whites; whatever ridiculous fabricated enemy that people try to use to justify their wrongful echo-chamber.

The conservative upper class gives these people guns and simple amusements in order to herd them into their own system of exploitation, denying them from knowing more and/or making more money, so that the upper class can maintain the power. "Those other people want to take away your guns and trucks, they don't believe in jesus and beer and fucking hot chicks, and they are taking away your jobs! They are baaaaad!!" Furthermore, everyone in society is told a lie that their hard work will always result in wealth and that chasing wealth should be considered the main goal in life. Thus our entire culture becomes more toxic, as people equate superficial possession and net worth with what is actually meaningful in life.

These people have even started to realize that the Republican party has been conning them. It's part of what Trump is tapping into, just passing the blame of what has been created by his own mentality onto that of the establishment Republicans. He's able to do this by the illusion of success that surrounds him; his INHERITED wealth giving him the means to look like he knows what he is talking about and say whatever violent, racist, ignorant shit he wants. So people again buy into childishly dumb notions of "what it really means to be a man", "what it really means to be an American", and how great America used to be be...all while ignoring the problems America has always had and how their concept of an ideal America was actually built on war-mongering and the exploitation of others. People think they can continue having xenophobic mentalities and "tough guy" mentalities, because in their mind this is what actually creates a good country and everyone should be like this, otherwise they are "bad guys" or "sissies".

[Nihilist_santa]

All of your problems are solved through ethno-nationalism friend. You guys have been brainwashed into thinking nationalism = imperialism when its the opposite. Globalism is the imperialist force in the word and the left is the only end of that spectrum that pushes global egalitarianism which has to be enforced through global governance.

Also your "more liberal with more education" line is BS. Its well known that people become more conservative over time. Guess that means that youthful idealism drives leftism while experience and wisdom drive conservatism. Something about acquiring private property tends to do that though.

[Nihilist_santa]

Also want to add that you sound like one of the brown butthurts getting the deportation force come January.

Can you be an ICE reservist or something? Im a civic minded kind of guy so just trying to do my part.

[sOurDieSel]

Logical fallacy. Jews mostly are white.




lawlz.

Jews are NOT White. They are not European. If you even say the word Jew they will call you an anti-semite. Therefore Jews openly admit to being semitic in nature, not White and not European.

Jews have been kicked out of over 100 different countries, were all those people and countries just evil racist anti-semites or is there a correlation between bad Jewish tribal behavior and getting kicked out of their host states?

[Trungep99]

This is what you've become as a ideology and party. What a disgusting racist wretch. Way to stand on the bodies of the dead to push your anti-white and anti-hetero agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9pHidD8sc

50 people dead and 53 wounded by a tolerant, religion of peace follower and this trash gets up there and makes it about how terrible whites are?

I can't believe these idiot liberals standing around applauding her deriding them for being white. Liberalism truly is a sign of brain damage.

Denounce this bitch!

i am at work and dont have time to watch the video but i think it is rediculous that you like to categorize every liberal to have the same opinion about a trajedy. It's a shame this trajedy happened and unfortunately probably could have been prevented.
lets just morne for our dead americans that were victims of this terrible crime

[Daywolf]

I've lived in Los Angeles for 8 years and I moved out of my parents houseI don't believe you. You're quick to call someone out as a liar, you probably have issues with lying. After all, I've met many liberals with issues of projection, as liberalism makes one crazy.

[AzzarTheGod]

lawlz.

Jews are NOT White. They are not European. If you even say the word Jew they will call you an anti-semite. Therefore Jews openly admit to being semitic in nature, not White and not European.

Jews have been kicked out of over 100 different countries, were all those people and countries just evil racist anti-semites or is there a correlation between bad Jewish tribal behavior and getting kicked out of their host states?

Good dunks here.

Zuranthium is a zog or goy apologist.

[Jorgam]

i am at work and dont have time to watch the video but i think it is rediculous that you like to categorize every liberal to have the same opinion about a trajedy. It's a shame this trajedy happened and unfortunately probably could have been prevented.
lets just morne for our dead americans that were victims of this terrible crime

Please watch the video when you have time.

It is most certainly that, a tragedy, and mourning those lost and remembering them would have been the right thing to do. However, if you watch the video you'll see that the bodies weren't even cold before the proud and tolerant left went straight into identity politics and "woe is me" victim posturing. All liberals are not like this, however the crowd, chalk full of liberals for sure, sat there and applauded these hateful and racist remarks. That is the future of the democrat party up on that stage. If you think for a second they are going to become conservatives and not assume control of the dem party when the reasonable older dems die off, you're in denial. That is my point.

[Zuranthium]

You guys have been brainwashed into thinking nationalism = imperialism when its the opposite. Globalism is the imperialist force in the world and the left is the only end of that spectrum that pushes global egalitarianism which has to be enforced through global governance.

Wrong. First of all, who thinks nationalism inherently means imperialism? You're placing a false assumption onto others. Second of all, nationalism alone certainly DOES create imperialism. It's called fucking "manifest destiny". Thirdly, global governance is something conservatives constantly try to do, when they want it to suit them. In our modern world it's something needs to be taken highly into consideration to begin with. The planet IS increasingly becoming "one nation" and we need to treat it as such, where possible.

I'm not sure why you brought up imperialism to begin with, though? That is a separate discussion from slavery and other such practices/mentalities (wreckless capitalism, religion, inequality, etc) in American history and how those attitudes continue to linger as a long-term effect in our current society or are still entirely prominent altogether.

Your line of rhetoric describing Mexican immigrants as "brown butthurts" shows just how terribly regressive the overall American mentality still is. Sigh.

Also your "more liberal with more education" line is BS. Its well known that people become more conservative over time.

It's not BS at all. There are many studies on it. People tend to become more liberal as they become more educated. You are correct, however, that people also tend to be more conservative as they get older. This is partly because many people actually tend to learn relatively less as they get older. They become stuck in a certain method of thinking and of doing things, and a certain routine that tends to be more isolated as compared to youth. "Can't teach an old dog new tricks"

Greed also has to do with it, gaining wealth and wanting more and more of it, or at least not wanting to lose any of what you have amassed. This is combined with the existential crisis of people needing to feel like their life has been meaningful and using personal wealth as a measuring tool. Also simply having less energy as you get older, makes you tend to want what you are already comfortable with.

Jews are NOT White.

Jewish people are mostly white skinned. You're being very daft. As shown by how you just tried to demonize Jewish people in your post, attempting to correlate their oppression throughout history with them "deserving it". Sad.

I don't believe you.

All you would have to do is look at my Facebook page. Again, it seems your viewpoint is informed mostly by ridiculous false assumptions and a lack of empathy.

[Pokesan]

*argues sincerely with the stormfront brigade*

[Raev]

and a lack of empathy.

Since 1967, government spending on social programs has increased by 10x, while the poverty rate has not budged. This includes Obamacare, which has resulted in increased health care premiums and decreased coverage. I just attended a talk by a Navy officer who was stationed in Soviet Russia in 1975, at which point just over half of their country had running water. Government simply does not work.

And you have the temerity to claim that people who don't support this miserable economic system, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, which has gaping theoretical flaws, which has always resulted in huge inequality, have a lack of empathy? There is nothing eminently moral about demanding other people pay for your food, housing, education, or health care. You are a freeloader, you stupid fuck.

[Pokesan]

Since 1967, government spending on social programs has increased by 10x

did any economic growth occur during that period?

:rolleyes:

[Raev]

https://i.imgur.com/f0g2tg7.png
in 2014 dollars, source (http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html)

Oh there is just one more thing . . . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1MgDvXzgl8)

[Jorgam]

Since 1967, government spending on social programs has increased by 10x, while the poverty rate has not budged. This includes Obamacare, which has resulted in increased health care premiums and decreased coverage. I just attended a talk by a Navy officer who was stationed in Soviet Russia in 1975, at which point just over half of their country had running water. Government simply does not work.

And you have the temerity to claim that people who don't support this miserable economic system, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, which has gaping theoretical flaws, which has always resulted in huge inequality, have a lack of empathy? There is nothing eminently moral about demanding other people pay for your food, housing, education, or health care. You are a freeloader, you stupid fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01o2xtJwgk

[AzzarTheGod]

did any economic growth occur during that period?

:rolleyes:

good post. pokesan in top form

[fash]

Leftist mentality dictates rationalism, education, and peace. There's a reason why people tend to become more liberal as they become more educated.

Leftist mentality disregards empiricism in favor of mah feels. It's peace minded to the fault that it ignores enemies.

People become indoctrinated in leftist rhetoric in education systems. If you think those education systems are left-wing because of rationalism, you're ignoring history.

[Swish]

https://i.imgur.com/f0g2tg7.png
in 2014 dollars, source (http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html)

Oh there is just one more thing . . . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1MgDvXzgl8)

Inflation has a part to play in that graph doesnt it?

[Raev]

No, it's in 2014 dollars. In the mean time the average median income in those same 2014 dollars increased by 20% (if you use the Fed's bogus inflation data) or 0% (if you use inflation data that includes things like food, fuel, and housing). In fact, the graph doesn't show it, but poverty in the US was declining rapidly all the way back from WWII. The Leftists' War on Poverty *actually halted an existing trend*.

So there is a reason Pokesan shut up.

[Swish]

It seems like the West generally is bad at balancing their books in the last 30 years or so...why might that be? :p

[Pokesan]

So there is a reason Pokesan shut up.


I went to bed you immersed clown.

[Raev]

So you got destroyed on the facts (again) and the best you can do is a few weak ad hominems.

Looks like you need more practice posting.

[Pokesan]

So you got destroyed on the facts (again) and the best you can do is a few weak ad hominems.

Looks like you need more practice posting.

You didn't post what I asked for though?

As for ad hominem, you made it personal first ya horses ass.

[Nihilist_santa]

It seems like the West generally is bad at balancing their books in the last 30 years or so...why might that be? :p

http://i.imgur.com/KWbK4Xj.png

[maskedmelon]

All you would have to do is look at my Facebook page. Again, it seems your viewpoint is informed by ridiculous false assumptions and a lack of empathy.

When we are so keen to don the mantle of rational piety, let us not succumb to the fickle inclinations of emotion nor ever fall remiss in acknowledgement of empathy as a bane to reason, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be.


Would you care to tell us more about any of these (paraphrased) points that you previously made?



-liberals are, generally speaking, good, smart, faultless people.

-conservatives are, generally speaking, stupid, nasty, fearful people

-Jews are actually white, which explains their contempt for and oppression of the brown Arabs.

-Blacks are incapable of making good decisions because they are the descendants of slaves.

-Asians don't matter because of reasons.

-Light skin is better than dark skin

[Alarti0001]

So you got destroyed on the facts (again) and the best you can do is a few weak ad hominems.

Looks like you need more practice posting.

Were the facts you listed all that was needed to support your case? I can tell you teh sky is blue but if it doesn't relate to the message you are trying to spread.... you have a problem. Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You are trying to say welfare is bad because it doesn't help the poor become "un-poor". However, the only thing that graph MIGHT demonstrate is the current way we spend welfare monies has limited effect on the poor with the current economic controls we are operating under.

Basically, your "DESTROYED BY FACTS" equates to arguing about gravity while using chlorophyll causing grass to be green as proof.

In summary you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.


You just got destroyed by logic.

[Raev]

Wait, so your argument is we should keep doing what we are doing even though it doesn't work because it might work if we did it differently? This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever written on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

The burden of proof is on you, the mongoloid socialist, who wants to change things. I await your bulletproof empirical evidence that socialism works with anxious anticipation.

[Alarti0001]

Wait, so your argument is we should keep doing what we are doing even though it doesn't work because it might work if we did it differently? This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever written on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

The burden of proof is on you, the mongoloid socialist, who wants to change things. I await your bulletproof empirical evidence that socialism works with anxious anticipation.



In summary you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.



You can't even figure out the argument.....you misapply the burden of proof. Yet you call me dumb? Refer to my quote.

Since you didn't address my point, I take it that you accepted the fact that your "facts" were non representative of your argument?

[Pokesan]

let's just take noted concern troll "bob pfeiffer"s word for it

[maskedmelon]

Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending.

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

[Alarti0001]

Your upending of Raev's argument is contingent on the veracity of the above bolded assertion. Care to differentiate raw and effective spending to substantiate your claim?

Do you have some supporting data on the nature and efficacy of welfare spending components?

What data is necessary? The why is the question.. the graph doesn't detail the "why". You seem confused, you think I'm making an argument that welfare spending is effective ever. I simple stated the "destroyed by facts" he provided are not enough to lead to his message.

[JurisDictum]

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll." Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering the stated goal of welfare programs in the States is not to lift people out of poverty -- you can't even honestly argue that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

[Alarti0001]

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll. Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering it is not the stated goal of welfare programs in the states is not to left people out of poverty -- you cant even say that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

Ding Ding... we have a winner.

[maskedmelon]

What data is necessary? The why is the question.. the graph doesn't detail the "why". You seem confused, you think I'm making an argument that welfare spending is effective ever. I simple stated the "destroyed by facts" he provided are not enough to lead to his message.

No, you made a claim that raw spending doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You assumed burden of proof there. How do you know? Is the truth self-evident? Divined?
Inferred? How?

And no, I am not mistaking your argument, because you haven't made one (aside from the mutual exclusivity of raw spending and effective spending, which I asked you to explain).

Your entire schtick is generally picking apart other peoples arguments without making one yourself, like what I am doing right now. I suppose I should call you stupid and fat if I am to properly follow suit. You seem to have fun with it, so not going to fault you there, it's what we do, but I am generally interested in how you arrive at some of you conclusions.

[Alarti0001]

No, you made a claim that raw spending doesn't have any relation to effective spending. You assumed burden of proof there. How do you know? Is the truth self-evident? Divined?
Inferred? How?

And no, I am not mistaking your argument, because you haven't made one (aside from the mutual exclusivity of raw spending and effective spending, which I asked you to explain).

Your entire schtick is generally picking apart other peoples arguments without making one yourself, like what I am doing right now. I suppose I should call you stupid and fat if I am to properly follow suit. You seem to have fun with it, so not going to fault you there, it's what we do, but I am generally interested in how you arrive at some of you conclusions.

Until you can prove that raw spending has a relation to effect than you must assume it doesn't.

But no I don't have fun with my 'schtick' its highly concerning t me how uneducated an illogical people are here. My 'schtick' only points out the inconsistencies so people can form better opinions... but its very very hard to break through the prideful defense of the faithful. Sometimes you need to bludgeon.

You may call me stupid the very moment I become stupid. I don't call people fat as it has no relation to an intellectual discussion.

[Nihilist_santa]

Again I see Raev framing "the government" as some universal force -- where one government is the same as another and there is no difference policy to policy. The United States government doesn't design welfare programs to lift people out of poverty. They believe that it will make people lazy. So they purposefully make sure those that receive assistance are getting the lowest amount they need to sustain their lives. This way pressure is put on everyone to go to the market. It makes it hard to reject shitty work conditions and pay because everyone is desperate.

There are countries that do use welfare to lift people out of poverty -- and they don't see mass amounts of people choosing to permanently "live on the doll." Most people want to work. Especially when the labor laws dictate things like reasonable wage, pay, hours, and due process before getting fired.

A government program is like any human organization -- it can work in accomplishing its goal or it can not. And considering the stated goal of welfare programs in the States is not to lift people out of poverty -- you can't even honestly argue that the program isn't working. But even if you find programs that don't work like their supposed to -- it simply doesn't prove what people like Raev are trying to imply it does: that all government intervention is doomed to make things worse for everyone.

I agree with you that welfare in the US is not to lift people out of poverty. You are doing what you claim Raev is doing in assuming poverty is a universal standard. People considered impoverished in the US would be middle class in other countries.

You're also stating that we should just waste money and resources fighting human nature just because its someone's "goal". Poverty is not some new development. It has been pretty much the norm since recorded history. People are not poor simply because others have more or because they are being oppressed. There are a number of factors that would cause one to be impoverished and many of those lie with the individual(in the context of the US seeing as people have access to education,movement,and a functioning economy) and are outside of our control regardless of how much money you throw at it.

[Alarti0001]

I agree with you that welfare in the US is not to lift people out of poverty. You are doing what you claim Raev is doing in assuming poverty is a universal standard. People considered impoverished in the US would be middle class in other countries.


People living in the US making US wages and paying US prices wouldn't be impoverished in other countries making US wages but paying other prices.

But of course if they lived in those countries they'd be making those countries wages.

The main idea of poverty is not being able to purchase what you need to provide for yourself or your family. The currency you are or are not paid in doesn't matter. Impoverished people working for equivalent value in other countries are still poor.

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

[Nihilist_santa]

People living in the US making US wages and paying US prices wouldn't be impoverished in other countries making US wages but paying other prices.

But of course if they lived in those countries they'd be making those countries wages.

The main idea of poverty is not being able to purchase what you need to provide for yourself or your family. The currency you are or are not paid in doesn't matter. Impoverished people working for equivalent value in other countries are still poor.

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

I noticed your logic only works when applied one way. If you bring the immigrant then his class has gone up compared to his countrymen even if he starts at the bottom in the US. Its not about wages. Can wages in India provide for AC, Car, Cell Phone, Internet, and all of the shit the "impoverished" in the US see as necessities?

We dont fight rape and murder we deter it through punishment. You cant apply that to poverty and if you do as in trying to deter poverty you dont do it by giving people free shit without changing the mindset that enables their poverty.

[Alarti0001]

I noticed your logic only works when applied one way. If you bring the immigrant then his class has gone up compared to his countrymen even if he starts at the bottom in the US. Its not about wages. Can wages in India provide for AC, Car, Cell Phone, Internet, and all of the shit the "impoverished" in the US see as necessities?

We dont fight rape and murder we deter it through punishment. You cant apply that to poverty and if you do as in trying to deter poverty you dont do it by giving people free shit without changing the mindset that enables their poverty.

Who sees lack of A/C as poverty? Not the US standard... not the International Standard....

Logic works the same way always. You just assume things that aren't fact.

[Nihilist_santa]

You haven't shown anything as usual. You come in talk about tangential issues like poverty making sure to frame it in your own preferred ideological context then cry about facts.

[maskedmelon]

Until you can prove that raw spending has a relation to effect than you must assume it doesn't.


The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.



You may call me stupid the very moment I become stupid. I don't call people fat as it has no relation to an intellectual discussion.

Well, I am not going to call you stupid.









fat.

[Alarti0001]

You haven't shown anything as usual. You come in talk about tangential issues like poverty making sure to frame it in your own preferred ideological context then cry about facts.

Says the guy who tried to make poverty about cars and air conditioning. Come on guy... at least make it difficult on me.

[Alarti0001]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.

Well, I am not going to call you stupid.

fat.

It must be assumed that simply increasing spending (throwing money at something) doesn't have a tangible effect. Seems logical.

Seems we are on the same page. Raev seems clueless CONFIRMED>

[maskedmelon]

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

I think we can all agree on the answer to to that question.

Do you consider poverty as the result of force, a denial of individual liberty similar to rape and murder though?

[Lune]

Don't understand how somebody can be so fanatical about free market economics when we live on the eve of a revolution in automation, and the vast majority of human labor will be obsolete.

Even if you believe it worked well in the past (it did, it was a fantastic boon to industrialization), it's obviously not going to work in the future. It simply won't take 8 billion humans to run the economy, and consumption-driven economics is destined to destroy the planet.

[Nihilist_santa]

Says the guy who tried to make poverty about cars and air conditioning. Come on guy... at least make it difficult on me.

I am saying poverty is relative to the culture you live in you are saying it is not. Please show me where people have to shit in the streets in the US because they lack access running water. Try to keep up fam.

[maskedmelon]

Don't understand how somebody can be so fanatical about free market economics when we live on the eve of a revolution in automation, and the vast majority of human labor will be obsolete.

Even if you believe it worked well in the past (it did, it was a fantastic boon to industrialization), it's obviously not going to work in the future. It simply won't take 8 billion humans to run the economy, and consumption-driven economics is destined to destroy the planet.

What do you propose we do with the surplus people?

[JurisDictum]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.



Well, I am not going to call you stupid.









fat.

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

[Alarti0001]

I am saying poverty is relative to the culture you live in you are saying it is not. Please show me where people have to shit in the streets in the US because they lack access running water. Try to keep up fam.

You are trying to redefine poverty to suit your purposes yes I agree.

[Alarti0001]

I think we can all agree on the answer to to that question.

Do you consider poverty as the result of force, a denial of individual liberty similar to rape and murder though?

I think, considering the current company on this forum, it would not be safe to agree on the answer to my question at all.

That is a good question at the end though. I think poverty CAN be a result of force and a denial of individual liberty though. Definitely not always.


What do you propose we do with the surplus people?


Batteries for the machines.. already saw this movie.

[Nihilist_santa]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

Common sense like Venezuela or the theoretical sort?

[Nihilist_santa]

I think, considering the current company on this forum, it would not be safe to agree on the answer to my question at all.

That is a good question at the end though. I think poverty CAN be a result of force and a denial of individual liberty though. Definitely not always.





Batteries for the machines.. already saw this movie.

So let me get this straight. You dont know the source of poverty but you advocate an elaborate, wasteful, expensive, unproven solution to ending it?

[Patriam1066]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

You say "poverty is relative to where you live," and then say countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty

If a country with a high GDP per capita and a high standard of living as a result, spends more money on welfare because of a higher cost of living than, say, a poorer country, did your stats prove the efficacy or welfare spending or did they just show that a more successful country, with a higher standard of living, has a higher cost to provide basic services? Even if you had data, statistics matter. Sweden would have to spend more to fight poverty than Latvia. In addition, welfare systems don't make Sweden experience less poverty than say, latvia. There are other cultural, educational, and societal factors at play

PS: as for the free market, we had this dude named Hamilton. After arguing for tariffs for decades, he finally got them implemented after the War is 1812. This had two effects: 1. Jump started nascent American industry
2. Provided jobs for a growing merchant marine (American ships with American crews hauling goods from Europe were exempted from tariffs).

Voila, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy, and economic growth, wage increases, prosperity! But you support Hillary Clinton, the devil incarnate, so you wouldn't know about fighting for America workers against fucked up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, the former signed into law by a Clinton and the latter to be signed into law by a Clinton in the future

[maskedmelon]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

[dafier]

Vote HILBAMA 2016!!!

[AzzarTheGod]

Vote HILBAMA 2016!!!

heh I wish.

theres highlight videos that prove Hillary is not 0bama. 4-8 min compilations of weird behavior and weird political platform shifts.

she is nothing like barrack, and comparing her to him is really doing 0bama a disservice.

Hillary's pet project was Libya. 0bama had no say in it, the documents have leaked proving as much.

[dafier]

I wasn't digging that deep. But ya, one is black and one is white. They are quite different.

[Pokesan]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

not getting eaten is a pretty good survival strategy

[JurisDictum]

You say "poverty is relative to where you live," and then say countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty

If a country with a high GDP per capita and a high standard of living as a result, spends more money on welfare because of a higher cost of living than, say, a poorer country, did your stats prove the efficacy or welfare spending or did they just show that a more successful country, with a higher standard of living, has a higher cost to provide basic services? Even if you had data, statistics matter. Sweden would have to spend more to fight poverty than Latvia. In addition, welfare systems don't make Sweden experience less poverty than say, latvia. There are other cultural, educational, and societal factors at play

PS: as for the free market, we had this dude named Hamilton. After arguing for tariffs for decades, he finally got them implemented after the War is 1812. This had two effects: 1. Jump started nascent American industry
2. Provided jobs for a growing merchant marine (American ships with American crews hauling goods from Europe were exempted from tariffs).

Voila, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy, and economic growth, wage increases, prosperity! But you support Hillary Clinton, the devil incarnate, so you wouldn't know about fighting for America workers against fucked up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, the former signed into law by a Clinton and the latter to be signed into law by a Clinton in the future

The economy is a lot different than it was in 1812. The only reason we are a rich country is because of things like intellectual property laws that are internationally enforced. We (advanced industrial economies) rig the international trade regime so that it works better for our countries' overall wealth. The problem with our country is a big portion doesn't think the wealth created this way needs to be redistributed more equally throughout society. Meanwhile, these kinds of trade agreements hit the poor hard and sudden in the short term.

But its not like Clinton just decided that there would be no more manufacturing in the rust belt. There are world economic realities at play. Clinton (along with most people in power) wanted to preserve the sectors of the economy that bring our country the most overall wealth. We can't do this while simultaneously holding our manufacturing and other skilled labor sectors. Trump implies we can -- but he's just BSing/selling himself.

The sectors we have going for us in the US economy include radical innovation (computers / phones and stuff like that) and financial services (investment and financial tools). We don't train our workforce for the high tech skills of the future for the most part. We just let the cream of the crop rise in the other two sectors I mentioned. Meanwhile, in the successful and advanced industrial economies of Europe -- seem to put much more effort into training their workforce to make things like IPhones and heavy machinary needed by the 3rd world in mass (Germany is cashing in).

Maybe that's all well and good, and its not wrong to let countries like Germany do what Germany is good at and try to work with what we are good at. But regardless, we need to get rid of the phobia of redistribution -- because it just isn't practical. It also isn't practical to bring back vast amounts of manufacturing in the US...unless we are ready to spend the kind of money Europe does on training highly skilled workers you can't find anywhere else.

[maskedmelon]

not getting eaten is a pretty good survival strategy

Have you almost been eaten recently?

[Alarti0001]

So let me get this straight. You dont know the source of poverty but you advocate an elaborate, wasteful, expensive, unproven solution to ending it?

I advocate what? Where did I advocate?

U crazy

[Pokesan]

Have you almost been eaten recently?

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.

[JurisDictum]

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.

7533

[maskedmelon]

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.

Do you live in Florida or something?

[dafier]

Do you live in Florida or something?

It's a 'swing' state. :p

[Pokesan]

Do you live in Florida or something?

further north

[Raev]

Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending.
You simply don't understand your own argument. You made up this term "effective spending" which basically is a black box standing between raw government spending and effectiveness. You claim the relationship between these two is not fixed. Which is true . . . but so what? Empirically, government has never been efficient. Theoretically, there is no reason it should be. It is not impossible that the government will be more effective tomorrow, but then it's not impossible that the sun will come up in the West either.

You are merely a third grader repeating 'why why why', unable to live in a world without absolutes.

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you?
Nice. I was wondering if anyone was going to notice this. The government intentionally doesn't count aid in their poverty figures so they can keep the welfare programs going.

confused ramblings
So if you agree that US welfare programs are designed to benefit progressives by generating cush government jobs and maintaining a perpetual underclass so that they can feel good about themselves and their superior empathy . . . . why do you want to expand these programs? Even if increased aid could work, what makes you think that will actually happen?

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years: massive redistribution programs, increased legal protection for women, minorities, and LGBT types, and a huge expansion in the Federal government. Over this same period, real wages have stagnated, racial tensions have not improved, poverty has not declined, happiness has gone down, and we have mortgaged out future with tens of trillions in government debt. How can you read this paragraph and support more government?

[Alarti0001]

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years: massive redistribution programs, increased legal protection for women, minorities, and LGBT types, and a huge expansion in the Federal government. Over this same period, real wages have stagnated, racial tensions have not improved, poverty has not declined, happiness has gone down, and we have mortgaged out future with tens of trillions in government debt. How can you read this paragraph and support more government?

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

You're a moron.
How can you read that sentence and think your opinion matters?

[Lune]

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years

This is just complete fantasy.

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

[Nihilist_santa]

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

You're a moron.
How can you read that sentence and think your opinion matters?

When have you offered anything other than opinion? Not counting your copy pastas from Wikipedia . Also don't feign ignorant about which system you advocate since you are one of those fascist under the bed types and have stated that world renowned leftist are actually hard right authoritarians.

[Daywolf]

That's why this forum is so interesting. Only here can a topic of BLM hijacking a vigil for the worst mass shooting in 100yrs, blame it on whity, and then here descend into economics as some explanation for a muslim terrorist on a shooting spree killing 49 and wounding some 50 homosexuals or such. So now we argue 50 shades of socialism.

[Raev]

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

Prove it. You've actually made a real statement here, so let's see you back it up.

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

This is complete spin. We spend far more on social programs than we did during the Great Society. How on earth is that moving to the right? I mean, I am with you that those programs have failed utterly, but that doesn't mean we didn't try.

[Nihilist_santa]

This is just complete fantasy.

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

You realize that the boomers ruined the place because of liberalism correct? They are the divorce, drug, "self help"/new age, feel good at any cost, pipe dream idealist that have been the useful idiots dragging sane people along on their "long march through the institutions" as they trade away real security and prosperity for empty slogans and platitudes . They are the modern left aside from their doper babies who are the SJWs and they drive leftist thought by controlling media and education. Bottom line like George Carlin said "Garbage in , Garbage out." the boomers mistakes are the result of embracing liberalism.

[Raev]

Santa your post actually says it better than mine. Let me condense this to one pithy sentence: the leftists got all the PROGRAMS they wanted, just not the RESULTS they wanted, because, as I have been expounding for many, many, many posts, Socialism just doesn't work.

[Nihilist_santa]

That's why this forum is so interesting. Only here can a topic of BLM hijacking a vigil for the worst mass shooting in 100yrs, blame it on whity, and then here descend into economics as some explanation for a muslim terrorist on a shooting spree killing 49 and wounding some 50 homosexuals or such. So now we argue 50 shades of socialism.

Have you ever once heard a leftist acknowledge the mistakes of the left? All I ever see are apologist like Allaharti who try to redefine the left and distance themselves from every leftist fuck up. Marx would have cheered on the gunman I think. Homosexual night club in a tourist city sounds pretty fucking bourgeois decadent to me.

[Pokesan]

Was Reagen a RHINO?

[Nihilist_santa]

Was Reagen a RHINO?

Reagan was an actor and GE spokesman who played the part of a Republican President for 8 years. Why do you ask?

[Lune]

This is complete spin. We spend far more on social programs than we did during the Great Society. How on earth is that moving to the right? I mean, I am with you that those programs have failed utterly, but that doesn't mean we didn't try.

It's incredibly reductive to take a single trend (increased spending on social programs) and say that alone signifies dominance of the left. Meanwhile an entire political party no longer believes in the efficacy of government (this was NOT a Republican value before 1960), union membership is at an all time low, minimum wage increases are taboo, tax is taboo, the financial system was deregulated, etc etc.

And it's worth mentioning that a huge portion of this "we spend far more on social programs now" trend is because the cost of healthcare has absolutely ballooned over the last 50 years, with an entire industry dedicated to milking Medicare and taking a cut of every healthcare transaction.

http://i.imgur.com/w1xHDEN.png

What you're saying is basically like watching a car drive uphill and then claiming it's a shitty, slow car that gets bad mileage-- no, it's just being raped by that incline. You're ignoring the complexity of the system.

Which reminds me just how dogshit that graph you posted is, as it includes healthcare and lumps it in as "Welfare" to make a point.

[Lune]

I'm not even really arguing for liberalism here.

So much of why our shit doesn't work isn't because people started voting Democrat and they got their way, it's because as a whole, our culture has degraded significantly in the last 50 years. More selfishness, greed, corruption, isolation, individualism, pussification, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc. Our culture is hardly even capable of supporting a healthy democracy at this point. Look at this fucking election. We have the government we deserve.

[AzzarTheGod]

I'm not even really arguing for liberalism here.

So much of why our shit doesn't work isn't because people started voting Democrat and they got their way, it's because as a whole, our culture has degraded significantly in the last 50 years. More selfishness, greed, corruption, isolation, individualism, pussification, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc. Our culture is hardly even capable of supporting a healthy democracy at this point. Look at this fucking election. We have the government we deserve.

Rejection of uniforms and suits had a lot to with the degradation since the 1950's.

The 60's movement permanently damaged society where it became cool to be a fuckwad in a t-shirt with no plans.

Now the t-shirt essence is still in full effect, plebs became even more plebian than they already were. "Suits are for upper management and execs" lol. It wasn't just about "dressing like the big man". Far from it. It was a uniform.

Many published studies have been done on the effects of uniforms. "Clothes make the man" (a progressive opinion) rings more true than accusations that suits were about "dressing like the big man" (a degenerate observation).

Degenerate opinion became popular opinion in the aftermath of the 60's.

[Nihilist_santa]

Rejection of uniforms and suits had a lot to with the degradation since the 1950's.

The 60's movement permanently damaged society where it became cool to be a fuckwad in a t-shirt with no plans.

Now the t-shirt essence is still in full effect, plebs became even more plebian than they already were. "Suits are for upper management and execs" lol. It wasn't just about "dressing like the big man". Far from it. It was a uniform.

Many published studies have been done on the effects of uniforms. "Clothes make the man" (a progressive opinion) rings more true than accusations that suits were about "dressing like the big man" (a degenerate observation).

Degenerate opinion became popular opinion in the aftermath of the 60's.

^ Great post. This describes perfectly movements like feminism.

http://i.imgur.com/z8lupjG.png

[Nihilist_santa]

I'm not even really arguing for liberalism here.

So much of why our shit doesn't work isn't because people started voting Democrat and they got their way, it's because as a whole, our culture has degraded significantly in the last 50 years. More selfishness, greed, corruption, isolation, individualism, pussification, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc. Our culture is hardly even capable of supporting a healthy democracy at this point. Look at this fucking election. We have the government we deserve.

Starting to understand you a bit more Lune however I still cant for the life of me understand why you agree economically with the left but disagree with them on social issues unless you are a National Socialist.

[Daywolf]

Have you ever once heard a leftist acknowledge the mistakes of the left? All I ever see are apologist like Allaharti who try to redefine the left and distance themselves from every leftist fuck up. Marx would have cheered on the gunman I think. Homosexual night club in a tourist city sounds pretty fucking bourgeois decadent to me.Well yeah, you and I both know that the left is incapable of acknowledging any fault and always brings random bogus issues to any discussion to inject confusion. After all, that's how they were trapped, even from their youth as they were taught to ignore logic and follow the hive mind think. Their elites of the left have studied how to reshape public consciousness and opinion (https://youtu.be/J8dUB4muqgI) to work in their favor to ring in social Marxism. Then much like a suicide cult, glassy eyed followers gasp in denial to the last breath.

[Lune]

Starting to understand you a bit more Lune however I still cant for the life of me understand why you agree economically with the left but disagree with them on social issues unless you are a National Socialist.

Because I am a national socialist

*Not the Hitler kind. Don't believe in genocide or racial purity. Generic fascism or spectral syncretic would be more accurate.

[JurisDictum]

Two conservative (probably white) guys think feminism is bad for women, HALT THE PRESSES!

7536

[Raev]

I'm not even really arguing for liberalism here.

So much of why our shit doesn't work isn't because people started voting Democrat and they got their way, it's because as a whole, our culture has degraded significantly in the last 50 years. More selfishness, greed, corruption, isolation, individualism, pussification, multiculturalism, political correctness, etc. Our culture is hardly even capable of supporting a healthy democracy at this point. Look at this fucking election. We have the government we deserve.

I mean, you aren't wrong. But you are just completely failing to understand that THIS IS SOCIALISM. This is how it works. Everything quality that we consider positive in men and women becomes irrelevant when Government the Big Brother takes care of everything.

Greed and corruption? Because manipulating the government is the quickest path to success. Multiculturalism? Greed and corruption in pompous moralistic form. Isolation and selfishness? Because taking care of poor is the government's job. Pussification? No one wants compete to pay higher taxes, and besides the government prefers sheeple anyway. And so on and so forth.

Again: the left has gotten all of the programs they wanted in the past 50 years. They just don't work.

P.S. Nice post Azzar.

[Nihilist_santa]

Because I am a national socialist

*Not the Hitler kind. Don't believe in genocide or racial purity. Generic fascism or spectral syncretic would be more accurate.

http://i.imgur.com/XoFZpPx.gif

[Nihilist_santa]

Two conservative (probably white) guys think feminism is bad for women, HALT THE PRESSES!

7536

Mexicant who has probably never touched a woman wouldn't understand. I dont fault you for your views though. I have seen the women your people produce and understand why you think women should be plow horses.

[Daywolf]

There is really only one answer, and it's not economics, racism, nor feminism, it's all about this: https://youtu.be/PlqXgXwzkPg?t=107 and for the left, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The left has been exposed once again for what it really is. Denounce the left and sponsor liberty ...and sanity.

[Jorgam]

Two conservative (probably white) guys think feminism is bad for women, HALT THE PRESSES!

7536

3rd wave feminism is bad for women and is cancer.

[Jorgam]

There is really only one answer, and it's not economics, racism, nor feminism, it's all about this: https://youtu.be/PlqXgXwzkPg?t=107 and for the left, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The left has been exposed once again for what it really is. Denounce the left and sponsor liberty ...and sanity.

The left refuses to see how these types of people would be the first to slay them for their ways of life and beliefs once they were the majority. They support Hillary who takes millions from countries and governments that kill people with the ideals/lifestyles and beliefs they espouse. But it feels so good to be so tolerant and they feel like good people for helping those poor, poor refugees. Results and consequences be damned.

[Pokesan]

The left refuses to see how these types of people would be the first to slay them for their ways of life and beliefs once they were the majority. They support Hillary who takes millions from countries and governments that kill people with the ideals/lifestyles and beliefs they espouse. But it feels so good to be so tolerant and they feel like good people for helping those poor, poor refugees. Results and consequences be damned.

please list all the enthusiastic Hillary voters on these forums

i'll wait

[Ahldagor]

So how is any of the last 15 pages relevant to the asshole in the op's posted video? Daywolf is right in that it's interesting, but good lord. Y'all are some fucked in the head individuals. Besides Lune. He's my waifu.

[Jorgam]

please list all the enthusiastic Hillary voters on these forums

i'll wait

Someone is voting for her obviously. You might not, but some of your fellow "principled" lefties are.

[maskedmelon]

I am still trying to figure out who actually likes her in the real world.

[Jorgam]

So how is any of the last 15 pages relevant to the asshole in the op's posted video? Daywolf is right in that it's interesting, but good lord. Y'all are some fucked in the head individuals. Besides Lune. He's my waifu.

Yeah the thread has been hijacked, but I'm still hopeful that people are looking at the video and seeing what the left has become.

[Jorgam]

I am still trying to figure out who actually likes her in the real world.

Everyone in the moronic crowd but the 3 gay men and like 1 woman that verbalized their anger at what she said.

[Pokesan]

So how is any of the last 15 pages relevant to the asshole in the op's posted video? Daywolf is right in that it's interesting, but good lord. Y'all are some fucked in the head individuals. Besides Lune. He's my waifu.

Daywolf is right. It's his fault. I wasn't born knowing how to derail threads into the deep wilderness.

I learned it from watching him.

[maskedmelon]

Everyone in the moronic crowd but the 3 gay men and like 1 woman that verbalized their anger at what she said.

I meant Hillary ^^, but I did just watch the video and cannot understand the applause that girl received either :/

[JurisDictum]

There is a reason the slogan is: "are you ready for Hillary?" That is the best way to describe it for most democratic voters. We are ready... considering the alternatives.

[Jorgam]

I meant Hillary ^^, but I did just watch the video and cannot understand the applause that girl received either :/

Yes, democrats are confusing.

[Jorgam]

There is a reason the slogan is: "are you ready for Hillary?" That is the best way to describe it for most democratic voters. We are ready... considering the alternatives.

Hold your nose and vote away your principles! She needs your hesitant support in order to advance the corporatist and globalist agenda she's be conscripted to champion.

[Pokesan]

one person apparently warrants a huge stormfront circlejerk :)

[maskedmelon]

We need a Plan. Here's my proposition to get us back on the right track:

1. Eliminate corporate income tax
2. Improve antitrust laws
3. Simplify Individual tax code with progressive rate structure
4. Parent liscensing
5. Capital punishment for all violent crime
6. Decriminalize victimless crime.
7. Eliminate medicare/caid coverage for preventable illness.
8. Change immigration from family based to merit based system.
9: limit voting rights to landowners.

In a generation or two we'd have all the cash and talent we could ever dream of wasting on free shit for all. It'd be great.

[Ahldagor]

We need a Plan. Here's my proposition to get us back on the right track:

1. Eliminate corporate income tax
2. Improve antitrust laws
3. Simplify Individual tax code with progressive rate structure
4. Parent liscensing
5. Capital punishment for all violent crime
6. Decriminalize victimless crime.
7. Eliminate medicare/caid coverage for preventable illness.
8. Change immigration from family based to merit based system.
9: limit voting rights to landowners.

In a generation or two we'd have all the cash and talent we could ever dream of wasting on free shit for all. It'd be great.

That'd collapse the system, and would take constitutional changes that would never pass due to the two thirds requirement; and not considering that piticians like votes. Are you sterile?

[Pokesan]

lol

http://i.imgur.com/ZpAaXPP.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPrison

[Jorgam]

lol

http://i.imgur.com/ZpAaXPP.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPrison

Good share. Thanks.

And to think, 70% of Dems think she should stay in the race and 50% of them believe she should stay in the race even if indicted! This is who the left has become. Shame!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicte d

[Xaanka]

one person apparently warrants a huge stormfront circlejerk :)

hitler was one person

[maskedmelon]

That'd collapse the system, and would take constitutional changes that would never pass due to the two thirds requirement; and not considering that piticians like votes. Are you sterile?

I don't think so, but i do not plan to have children anyway, so it is doubly unlikely my genius will infect future generations. Don't worry Ahaglord, your Part D insulin is safe from me^^

[Swish]

I don't think so, but i do not plan to have children anyway, so it is doubly unlikely my genius will infect future generations. Don't worry Ahaglord, your Part D insulin is safe from me^^

It's the most important thing.

[Swish]

lol

http://i.imgur.com/ZpAaXPP.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPrison

dear god. rofl

[Ahldagor]

I don't think so, but i do not plan to have children anyway, so it is doubly unlikely my genius will infect future generations. Don't worry Ahaglord, your Part D insulin is safe from me^^

Interesting verbage there, and very well because you shouldn't reproduce. Seriously tho', can we dereail this thread into eroticism? It's already a circle jerk.

[maskedmelon]

Interesting verbage there, and very well because you shouldn't reproduce. Seriously tho', can we dereail this thread into eroticism? It's already a circle jerk.

Why else would I choose not to? You may do with the thread as you see fit of course. What did you think of the cunt in OP's video though?

[Jorgam]

Interesting verbage there, and very well because you shouldn't reproduce. Seriously tho', can we dereail this thread into eroticism? It's already a circle jerk.

/Veto

Stay on topic!

Leftists using children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDW1R9OmOr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw

[Ahldagor]

Why else would I choose not to? You may do with the thread as you see fit of course. What did you think of the cunt in OP's video though?

She hijacked a time of mourning for personal politics which is rude. Courtesy should be upheld at all times in my book, and she come off as a narcisistic moron because of that. There's an over whelming lack of tact in the youth and politics in general which hinders the development and spreading of positions. A lot likely correlates with internet discussions being the way they are (at a distance) which limits civil debate because that distance brings about a comfort zone that is unrealistic and unreliable. There's also an over whelming cartesian ego in debates now that displays an immaturity more than anything because there's no consideration that their stance is or may be wrong even when presented with contrary evidence. Are you into S&M?

[maskedmelon]

She hijacked a time of mourning for personal politics which is rude. Courtesy should be upheld at all times in my book, and she come off as a narcisistic moron because of that. There's an over whelming lack of tact in the youth and politics in general which hinders the development and spreading of positions. A lot likely correlates with internet discussions being the way they are (at a distance) which limits civil debate because that distance brings about a comfort zone that is unrealistic and unreliable. There's also an over whelming cartesian ego in debates now that displays an immaturity more than anything because there's no consideration that their stance is or may be wrong even when presented with contrary evidence. Are you into S&M?

I am not sure that it is fair to saddle the internet with responsibility for the rigidity of human thought. I think we have the American perversion of individualism to thank for exacerbating it though. When everyone is entitled to their own opinions, how can any be wrong? I do agree that the internet fosters a greater sense of security (and openness by extension) than we find in the physical world. I am not so sure that is necessarily a bad thing though. As repugnant, uninformed or obtuse as they may be, none of my thoughts would find reception and none of my questions, answers. I do not practice it, I do not like marks. I can see the appeal though. I generally detest being in control, it frustrates me. Suffering also brings a unique perspective to life allowing us to know happiness. I would expect you are quite the opposite?

[Alarti0001]

This is just complete fantasy.

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

Correct

When have you offered anything other than opinion? Not counting your copy pastas from Wikipedia . Also don't feign ignorant about which system you advocate since you are one of those fascist under the bed types and have stated that world renowned leftist are actually hard right authoritarians.

yes I've offered lots of fact supported by evidence. What world renowned leftist did I call a hard right authoritarian? Support your statement.. just once. I'm begging you.

Prove it. You've actually made a real statement here, so let's see you back it up.



This is complete spin. We spend far more on social programs than we did during the Great Society. How on earth is that moving to the right? I mean, I am with you that those programs have failed utterly, but that doesn't mean we didn't try.

What percent of GDP is going to new programs that weren't around during FDR? Far more total dollars? Sure.

You realize that the boomers ruined the place because of liberalism correct? They are the divorce, drug, "self help"/new age, feel good at any cost, pipe dream idealist that have been the useful idiots dragging sane people along on their "long march through the institutions" as they trade away real security and prosperity for empty slogans and platitudes . They are the modern left aside from their doper babies who are the SJWs and they drive leftist thought by controlling media and education. Bottom line like George Carlin said "Garbage in , Garbage out." the boomers mistakes are the result of embracing liberalism.

Please realize liberalism and the left are not congruent concepts. The boomers mistakes were caused by getting to comfortable...they traded away workers rights for idiotic theories of trickle down economics. They traded journalism for entertainment and fact for belief. The leftists sat idle while the right rigged the system for the few.

[Alarti0001]

It's incredibly reductive to take a single trend (increased spending on social programs) and say that alone signifies dominance of the left. Meanwhile an entire political party no longer believes in the efficacy of government (this was NOT a Republican value before 1960), union membership is at an all time low, minimum wage increases are taboo, tax is taboo, the financial system was deregulated, etc etc.

And it's worth mentioning that a huge portion of this "we spend far more on social programs now" trend is because the cost of healthcare has absolutely ballooned over the last 50 years, with an entire industry dedicated to milking Medicare and taking a cut of every healthcare transaction.

http://i.imgur.com/w1xHDEN.png

What you're saying is basically like watching a car drive uphill and then claiming it's a shitty, slow car that gets bad mileage-- no, it's just being raped by that incline. You're ignoring the complexity of the system.

Which reminds me just how dogshit that graph you posted is, as it includes healthcare and lumps it in as "Welfare" to make a point.

Exactly

Also, along with healthcare the Social security is exponentially more expensive with more and more elders living longer lives. The largest social programs we have are healthcare and social security. Also the 2 programs with largest cost growth. These aren't new programs that show the left "won".

[Alarti0001]

Yeah the thread has been hijacked, but I'm still hopeful that people are looking at the video and seeing what the left has become.

The left has become the right economically in the USA anyways.

[Raev]

yes I've offered lots of fact supported by evidence. What world renowned leftist did I call a hard right authoritarian? Support your statement.. just once. I'm begging you.

....

What percent of GDP is going to new programs that weren't around during FDR? Far more total dollars? Sure.

This is pretty hilarious considering that your idea of supporting your statements is to ask questions. And bad questions too; your phrasing implies that the growth of existing programs doesn't matter, only new programs do.

[maskedmelon]

I think the relevant question is, why do we need more social programs? It seems to me that social welfare programs all contribute to degradation of the family unit upon which every society is built. Social security affords the elderly independence, but dilutes parental bonds and removes them from the household when historically they played an integral role in helping raise children. Welfare allows men and families to avoid responsibility for premature procreation and fosters increased single motherhood. Not because it incentivizes it, but because it helps to de-stigmatize it. You can be damn sure that if most fathers or families thought their children/mothers/sisters were actually going to starve to death, thy would help take care of them and through that shared suffering would be more likely to learn from the mistake rather than rolling the dice and hoping it doesn't happen again. Who's into feathers?

[Alarti0001]

This is pretty hilarious considering that your idea of supporting your statements is to ask questions. And bad questions too; your phrasing implies that the growth of existing programs doesn't matter, only new programs do.

A growth of a program caused by people having babies who then grow up to be adults... isn't a great victory for the left kiddo.

[Raev]

Alarti, go back and read your own sentence. It deals with percentage of GDP. In other words, economic growth is already factored in. Also, you have yet to provide any facts at all on this issue.

It's just amazing to me how someone who spends all of their time nitpicking other people for not providing facts or perfect use of English . . . . can't provide facts or use English correctly.

[Ahldagor]

I am not sure that it is fair to saddle the internet with responsibility for the rigidity of human thought. I think we have the American perversion of individualism to thank for exacerbating it though. When everyone is entitled to their own opinions, how can any be wrong? I do agree that the internet fosters a greater sense of security (and openness by extension) than we find in the physical world. I am not so sure that is necessarily a bad thing though. As repugnant, uninformed or obtuse as they may be, none of my thoughts would find reception and none of my questions, answers. I do not practice it, I do not like marks. I can see the appeal though. I generally detest being in control, it frustrates me. Suffering also brings a unique perspective to life allowing us to know happiness. I would expect you are quite the opposite?

Not putting all of it on the internet, just a theory of correlation. There's also, as Lune and I have said, the baby boomer influence that props up the cartesian ego in the culture. As for an outlet, I agree that there's positives and negatives to that. The main negative being that people do not understand rhetoric and how it works, so they fall steadfastly to their opinions. I'm more sadistic than masochistic and highly suggest De Sade and Masoch for reading. I'm a biter too. Tho' tongue flicks on the nipple and a little bit of teeth have gotten my partners pretty aroused. Oral is favorite of mine. Do you enjoy oral sex?

[Jorgam]

I think the relevant question is, why do we need more social programs? It seems to me that social welfare programs all contribute to degradation of the family unit upon which every society is built. Social security affords the elderly independence, but dilutes parental bonds and removes them from the household when historically they played an integral role in helping raise children. Welfare allows men and families to avoid responsibility for premature procreation and fosters increased single motherhood. Not because it incentivizes it, but because it helps to de-stigmatize it. You can be damn sure that if most fathers or families thought their children/mothers/sisters were actually going to starve to death, thy would help take care of them and through that shared suffering would be more likely to learn from the mistake rather than rolling the dice and hoping it doesn't happen again. Who's into feathers?

One word: Votes

The more dependency you can create on the government, the more votes you attract to retain and grow the power and control of the government. You create dependency by stripping people of their responsibilities and feeding them. Ever seen those signs in parks about not feeding the animals because they will forget how to feed themselves? Same thing. The government model of the left requires as many people to be dependent on it, in as many facets of life as possible. The final goal of course is to create a single party system whereby they will persecute their ideological enemies as has been seen through out history.

And remember, when someone else is paying your way, that is not Freedom.

[maskedmelon]

Not putting all of it on the internet, just a theory of correlation. There's also, as Lune and I have said, the baby boomer influence that props up the cartesian ego in the culture. As for an outlet, I agree that there's positives and negatives to that. The main negative being that people do not understand rhetoric and how it works, so they fall steadfastly to their opinions. I'm more sadistic than masochistic and highly suggest De Sade and Masoch for reading. I'm a biter too. Tho' tongue flicks on the nipple and a little bit of teeth have gotten my partners pretty aroused. Oral is favorite of mine. Do you enjoy oral sex?

Well, of course. I am going to need to have you explain what you mean by Cartesian ego though to ensure we are on the same page going forward. Given context and google it seems you are using it to describe the inability to doubt oneself. Is that right? If so, we are good. I wonder though if the internet really does impair peoples' understanding or rhetoric or if it is just that it really isn't all that well understood by the population at large. Well, you know what they say opinions are like, right? Assholes, everybody has one. What do you think about that?

[Alarti0001]

Alarti, go back and read your own sentence. It deals with percentage of GDP. In other words, economic growth is already factored in. Also, you have yet to provide any facts at all on this issue.

It's just amazing to me how someone who spends all of their time nitpicking other people for not providing facts or perfect use of English . . . . can't provide facts or use English correctly.

Omg what is amazing is you think the growing elderly pool collecting social security some how contribute in any typical way to GDP.

Please learn the terms before you try to correct me. You end up just looking more like a fool when you rush to correct me(incorrectly).

[Raev]

What's amazing is how you try to rewrite your post dealing with population growth to one about demographic change. And Social Security should not even be included in the data I've posted, as it is not means tested. Again, you simply aren't precise in your language or thought processes, and you still have posted 0.0 evidence.

So . . . prove it

[maskedmelon]

Raev,

You just need to learn to ask the right questions. He hasn't argued that the programs work or that he even likes them. In fact he's indicated quite the contrary. The two of you are debating different things. You are arguing that what he wants has failed. He is arguing that is not what he wanted. It seems to me you both agree that the programs are shit and ought to be scrapped. The difference is what you each think should be done instead of what we have. Why not ask what he thinks should be done? Right now you are debating phantoms.

Alarti,

Do you have examples of social programs that you think work, or that you would like to see? What do you think needs to be done and how? It seems to m that you would like to see some form of basic income. What about price controls, tax, personal property and social reparations? You've previously indicated a preference for socialism or even communism, but have yet to define those terms as you understand them. Given your unconventional (at least in the us and on these boards) view of left/right, expanding on your views might help.

[Alarti0001]

Raev,

You just need to learn to ask the right questions. He hasn't argued that the programs work or that he even likes them. In fact he's indicated quite the contrary. The two of you are debating different things. You are arguing that what he wants has failed. He is arguing that is not what he wanted. It seems to me you both agree that the programs are shit and ought to be scrapped. The difference is what you each think should be done instead of what we have. Why not ask what he thinks should be done? Right now you are debating phantoms.

Alarti,

Do you have examples of social programs that you think work, or that you would like to see? What do you think needs to be done and how? It seems to m that you would like to see some form of basic income. What about price controls, tax, personal property and social reparations? You've previously indicated a preference for socialism or even communism, but have yet to define those terms as you understand them. Given your unconventional (at least in the us and on these boards) view of left/right, expanding on your views might help.

I think the programs as they are implemented are crap not the idea of social programs.

Socialism is a very very very broad term. However, the window-lickers on this forum just label socialism as one bad thing to constantly guard against. The USA is a socialist country. Just about every country is a socialist country to some degree. It's a spectrum... and I'm not talking about the autism spectrum that Santa, Raev, and Daywolf are clearly deep into.

To say I like socialism is akin to saying yes, I like humanity and its ability to better itself through cooperative effort.

I never expressed a like for communism however. Communism is not a system designed for humans who are slaves to biological function. Just like Ayn Rand's version of libertarian doesn't take into account basic humanity.

Taxation is necessary it just needs to be put to better use. Taxation is best served improving the lives of the taxpayer, meaning education, infrastructure, health, and retirement. We don't need 600 billion dollars spent on the military especially since no sovereign country is going to attack us.

If you mean price controls as is preventing price gouging by companies with monopolies or near monopolies than yes that is necessary... Take pharmaceutical companies as an example.

Social reparations... assuming you mean racial reparations etc. I think its an idiotic term. Yes the USA did a bad thing... No I'm not responsible for that bad thing.
However, the end goal of the government should be the betterment of citizens lives. The solution to years of racism and slavery plus lack of societal and economic integration is not handing out a check. This solution isn't about race though its about all the disenfranchised or impoverished, education and reduction of poverty are the best means for the upward mobility of a social class.
The idea that everyone has equal chance to climb the socioeconomic ladder is a lame myth. People who grow up in poverty have very very limited resources to improve their lives.
An often un-thought of fact: If you want to save money on good a person who has access to cash can buy goods in bulk. I poor person living paycheck to paycheck has to buy at top prices always. Being poor is expensive.
In any case Companies are not job creators. Consumers are job creators, purchasing power is what makes jobs, and removing poverty is the best way to create jobs, increase wages, and improve quality of life for every citizen across economic classes.

[Ahldagor]

Purchasing power, demand, symbiotic relationship in a market economy. That's what most people miss. Kant's merchant and buyer parable in a deontological ethic.

[Ahldagor]

Well, of course. I am going to need to have you explain what you mean by Cartesian ego though to ensure we are on the same page going forward. Given context and google it seems you are using it to describe the inability to doubt oneself. Is that right? If so, we are good. I wonder though if the internet really does impair peoples' understanding or rhetoric or if it is just that it really isn't all that well understood by the population at large. Well, you know what they say opinions are like, right? Assholes, everybody has one. What do you think about that?

Bingo, the doubt. Does it lead to angst?

[maskedmelon]

Bingo, the doubt. Does it lead to angst?

Initially, it can very much so, yes, especially with regards to indeterminate truths. Inevitably though, reasonable doubt leads to truth in every ordinary circumstance and as a bonus also avoids the loss of face associated with committal to falsehoods.

Now, while we can never be certain of a thing, we can at least be reasonably confident. It is also important to understand that when we have no way of knowing one way or another, there is little point fretting over something ^^ Japanese have a saying for situations like that: "shou ga nai", which basically means "there is nothing that can be done about it". It is a form of surrender that enables one to move passed situations they are powerless to resolve on their own. Once we come to understand and embrace that, doubt becomes rather comforting and encouraging.

[maskedmelon]

I think the programs as they are implemented are crap not the idea of social programs.

Socialism is a very very very broad term. However, the window-lickers on this forum just label socialism as one bad thing to constantly guard against. The USA is a socialist country. Just about every country is a socialist country to some degree. It's a spectrum... and I'm not talking about the autism spectrum that Santa, Raev, and Daywolf are clearly deep into.

To say I like socialism is akin to saying yes, I like humanity and its ability to better itself through cooperative effort.

I never expressed a like for communism however. Communism is not a system designed for humans who are slaves to biological function. Just like Ayn Rand's version of libertarian doesn't take into account basic humanity.

Taxation is necessary it just needs to be put to better use. Taxation is best served improving the lives of the taxpayer, meaning education, infrastructure, health, and retirement. We don't need 600 billion dollars spent on the military especially since no sovereign country is going to attack us.

If you mean price controls as is preventing price gouging by companies with monopolies or near monopolies than yes that is necessary... Take pharmaceutical companies as an example.

Social reparations... assuming you mean racial reparations etc. I think its an idiotic term. Yes the USA did a bad thing... No I'm not responsible for that bad thing.
However, the end goal of the government should be the betterment of citizens lives. The solution to years of racism and slavery plus lack of societal and economic integration is not handing out a check. This solution isn't about race though its about all the disenfranchised or impoverished, education and reduction of poverty are the best means for the upward mobility of a social class.
The idea that everyone has equal chance to climb the socioeconomic ladder is a lame myth. People who grow up in poverty have very very limited resources to improve their lives.
An often un-thought of fact: If you want to save money on good a person who has access to cash can buy goods in bulk. I poor person living paycheck to paycheck has to buy at top prices always. Being poor is expensive.
In any case Companies are not job creators. Consumers are job creators, purchasing power is what makes jobs, and removing poverty is the best way to create jobs, increase wages, and improve quality of life for every citizen across economic classes.

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you with regard to communism. You had previously described communism as "utopian", which lead me to believe you held a favorable view of it, but I understand you were just describing it as it defines itself.

To me, everything else you shared sounds like extraordinarily moderate/centrist positions. Not all too surprising though ^^ Blinded by ideology I think that is generally the refuge of pragmatism. Reason and idiocy flourish throughout the political spectrum, though the former tends to be less common and the latter more common at the extremes.

I know you consider Hillary on the (your?) right, but who do you consider to be to your left? Who do you consider to be more or less where you are? Are there any American politicians? How about foreign politicians/governments?

[Nihilist_santa]

I think the programs as they are implemented are crap not the idea of social programs.

Socialism is a very very very broad term. However, the window-lickers on this forum just label socialism as one bad thing to constantly guard against. The USA is a socialist country. Just about every country is a socialist country to some degree. It's a spectrum... and I'm not talking about the autism spectrum that Santa, Raev, and Daywolf are clearly deep into.

To say I like socialism is akin to saying yes, I like humanity and its ability to better itself through cooperative effort.

I never expressed a like for communism however. Communism is not a system designed for humans who are slaves to biological function. Just like Ayn Rand's version of libertarian doesn't take into account basic humanity.

Taxation is necessary it just needs to be put to better use. Taxation is best served improving the lives of the taxpayer, meaning education, infrastructure, health, and retirement. We don't need 600 billion dollars spent on the military especially since no sovereign country is going to attack us.

If you mean price controls as is preventing price gouging by companies with monopolies or near monopolies than yes that is necessary... Take pharmaceutical companies as an example.

Social reparations... assuming you mean racial reparations etc. I think its an idiotic term. Yes the USA did a bad thing... No I'm not responsible for that bad thing.
However, the end goal of the government should be the betterment of citizens lives. The solution to years of racism and slavery plus lack of societal and economic integration is not handing out a check. This solution isn't about race though its about all the disenfranchised or impoverished, education and reduction of poverty are the best means for the upward mobility of a social class.
The idea that everyone has equal chance to climb the socioeconomic ladder is a lame myth. People who grow up in poverty have very very limited resources to improve their lives.
An often un-thought of fact: If you want to save money on good a person who has access to cash can buy goods in bulk. I poor person living paycheck to paycheck has to buy at top prices always. Being poor is expensive.
In any case Companies are not job creators. Consumers are job creators, purchasing power is what makes jobs, and removing poverty is the best way to create jobs, increase wages, and improve quality of life for every citizen across economic classes.

Guy talks about facts and semantics then comes in and redefines socialism a very specific economic theory as being some defacto state when people work together. Great job there. Says we dont need military spending because no one will attack us. No wonder your fucking guild tanked on red.

[Nihilist_santa]

Bingo, the doubt. Does it lead to angst?

Why would society need to doubt itself in this post modern world of relativism? You act like society should doubt itself based on some morality which as a relativist you cannot define.

[Alarti0001]

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you with regard to communism. You had previously described communism as "utopian", which lead me to believe you held a favorable view of it, but I understand you were just describing it as it defines itself.

To me, everything else you shared sounds like extraordinarily moderate/centrist positions. Not all too surprising though ^^ Blinded by ideology I think that is generally the refuge of pragmatism. Reason and idiocy flourish throughout the political spectrum, though the former tends to be less common and the latter more common at the extremes.

I know you consider Hillary on the (your?) right, but who do you consider to be to your left? Who do you consider to be more or less where you are? Are there any American politicians? How about foreign politicians/governments?

I don't know of a serious American politician on my left. I'm sure there are some.
I'm not familiar enough either foreign politicians

Guy talks about facts and semantics then comes in and redefines socialism a very specific economic theory as being some defacto state when people work together. Great job there. Says we dont need military spending because no one will attack us. No wonder your fucking guild tanked on red.

You realize that is what socialism is about right? Common good etc? It's not a redefinition. The idea is that the productive capacity of the many is greater than the few.

Guy is trying to compare geopolitics to an EQ pvp server. 'Nuff said.

However, for the sake of pinning you to an answer which country would dare attack the USA? I don't say we need no military spending we just don't need 600billion worth.
I wonder if you will ever actually answer a question.

Be warned if you answer China, be prepared for me to laugh at you. If you answer Russia, be prepared for me to laugh at you. If you answer Iran or North Korea be prepared for me to laugh at you and dismiss you as irrelevant in the future.

[Nihilist_santa]

I don't know of a serious American politician on my left. I'm sure there are some.
I'm not familiar enough either foreign politicians



You realize that is what socialism is about right? Common good etc? It's not a redefinition. The idea is that the productive capacity of the many is greater than the few.

Guy is trying to compare geopolitics to an EQ pvp server. 'Nuff said.

However, for the sake of pinning you to an answer which country would dare attack the USA? I don't say we need no military spending we just don't need 600billion worth.
I wonder if you will ever actually answer a question.

Be warned if you answer China, be prepared for me to laugh at you. If you answer Russia, be prepared for me to laugh at you. If you answer Iran or North Korea be prepared for me to laugh at you and dismiss you as irrelevant in the future.

Socialism is very specific dude(control of the means of production by the state). You are just showing how full of BS you are. Im not a moron like you so I dont think in simplistic terms of 1 single enemy working alone attacking the US. Starting to doubt you were in the military at this point. Who cares about militarys. Rome wasnt defeated by a military it was defeated by importation of immigrants and over extension of its military,political infighting, and economic disaster caused by slavery.

[sOurDieSel]

Obama's Religion of Peace Rapugees Dindu Nuffins.

http://www.kivitv.com/news/twin-falls-pd-alleged-rape-committed-by-boys-of-iraqisudanese-descent

5 year old little girl raped and pissed all over.

We can thank Obama, Hillary and all the libcucks out there who want to import these 3rd world savages to destroy America.

Enjoy the Diversity.

[Lune]

Socialism is very specific dude

It's actually not. Socialism exists along a spectrum just like capitalism. You probably deride Denmark, Japan, or Canada for being so "socialist", but do the workers own the means of production there? No. So you'd be using the term wrong too when people in the US want some of the concepts they have going in these places and you call them socialist.

[Alarti0001]

Socialism is very specific dude(control of the means of production by the state). You are just showing how full of BS you are. Im not a moron like you so I dont think in simplistic terms of 1 single enemy working alone attacking the US. Starting to doubt you were in the military at this point. Who cares about militarys. Rome wasnt defeated by a military it was defeated by importation of immigrants and over extension of its military,political infighting, and economic disaster caused by slavery.
Says we dont need military spending because no one will attack us.
Seems you care about the militarys?


So you retract your statement then? Please explain a realistic scenario where a "league of nations" attacks the USA. I'm waiting although it seems obvious you don't want to answer my question with your sidestep there at the end.


It's actually not. Socialism exists along a spectrum just like capitalism. You probably deride Denmark, Japan, or Canada for being so "socialist", but do the workers own the means of production there? No. So you'd be using the term wrong too when people in the US want some of the concepts they have going in these places and you call them socialist.

But Rush Limbaugh told me different!?!??!

[Redi]

Hey alarti, are you the guy that transfered to red and immediately got griefed off? Just wonderin, thanks in advance.

[Ahldagor]

Why would society need to doubt itself in this post modern world of relativism? You act like society should doubt itself based on some morality which as a relativist you cannot define.

Kant's parable of the merchant and buyer in a deontological ethic. How do you not know what words mean with a tool like Google at your disposal. Also, how did you come to assume I'm a relatavist?

[Alarti0001]

Hey alarti, are you the guy that transfered to red and immediately got griefed off? Just wonderin, thanks in advance.

Nope

[Archalen]

Inb4 I don't listen to anybody I do my own research on infowars

[Nihilist_santa]

It's actually not. Socialism exists along a spectrum just like capitalism. You probably deride Denmark, Japan, or Canada for being so "socialist", but do the workers own the means of production there? No. So you'd be using the term wrong too when people in the US want some of the concepts they have going in these places and you call them socialist.

You are not talking about socialism. Socialism has a definition. People like Allaharti who want to get hung up on terms should understand this. All you guys are doing is trying to redefine socialism to throw off its past negative connotations. Healthcare is not socialism in and of itself but when healthcare is used to consolidate power to a centralized government, removes competition, and tries to fix prices that IS socialism.

[Nihilist_santa]

Kant's parable of the merchant and buyer in a deontological ethic. How do you not know what words mean with a tool like Google at your disposal. Also, how did you come to assume I'm a relatavist?

Your point is what exactly? Decartes was a psychopath so I take him with a grain of salt. Im talking about your cartesian ego. Now you want to bring up kant. How is that beer delivery job going?

[Nihilist_santa]

Hey alarti, are you the guy that transfered to red and immediately got griefed off? Just wonderin, thanks in advance.

Waiting on Allaharti to redefine quitting for 5 pages.

[maskedmelon]

I am too stupid to follow where this discussion is going. We were having an engaging discussion about skepticism and anal play. Now I'm confused. Every time I talk to Agladhor I walk away thinking one of us is stupid, the other is mad and can't for the life of me figure out which is which.

And WHO THE FUCK IS KANT?!

[Nihilist_santa]

I am too stupid to follow where this discussion is going. We were having an engaging discussion about skepticism and anal play. Now I'm confused. Every time I talk to Agladhor I walk away thinking one of us is stupid, the other is mad and can't for the life of me figure out which is which.

And WHO THE FUCK IS KANT?!

Kant is someone for a literature degree burn out to pull up on google in between beer deliveries. Im surprised he hasnt brought up someone like Wilhem Reich and the Mass Psychology of Fascism. It would be more relevant to the discussion and would also play to aldhagors sick sexual deviancy.

[Alarti0001]

I am too stupid to follow where this discussion is going. We were having an engaging discussion about skepticism and anal play. Now I'm confused. Every time I talk to Agladhor I walk away thinking one of us is stupid, the other is mad and can't for the life of me figure out which is which.

And WHO THE FUCK IS KANT?!

Seriously don't know who Immanuel Kant is? I thought they thought this in school at least.

[Alarti0001]

You are not talking about socialism. Socialism has a definition. People like Allaharti who want to get hung up on terms should understand this. All you guys are doing is trying to redefine socialism to throw off its past negative connotations. Healthcare is not socialism in and of itself but when healthcare is used to consolidate power to a centralized government, removes competition, and tries to fix prices that IS socialism.

You're right socialism does have a definition.


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Socialist economic systems can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s and of a general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[13] In addition to the debate over markets and planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[2][13] Core dichotomies associated with these concerns include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism. Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralized; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organized through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of, and critical of, unions; and present in both industrialized and developing countries.[29] While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the term "democratic socialism" is often used to highlight its advocates' high value for democratic processes in the economy and democratic political systems,[30] usually to draw contrast to tendencies they may perceive to be undemocratic in their approach. The term is frequently used to draw contrast to the political system of the Soviet Union, which some have argued operated in an authoritarian fashion.




Class is dismissed Santa... maybe you should have attended once or twice.

Christ you're dumb.

[Ahldagor]

Your point is what exactly? Decartes was a psychopath so I take him with a grain of salt. Im talking about your cartesian ego. Now you want to bring up kant. How is that beer delivery job going?

The Cartesian Ego is focused around Descarte's famous, "Cogito ergo sum," which is derived from having the ability to doubt existence in thought is proof of existence with the sanction of God. I've used it in a way of folks having a lack of doubt of their own thoughts which become presented as the only correct notion ("I think A so B is inherently wrong because I didn't think it")(The dependent clause is what typically manifests when presented with contrary evidence which then breaks down into ad hominem). I bring up Kant because I agree with an ethic based upon a duty. The parable speaks that a merchant has a duty to offer a fair price and that the buyer has a duty to know a fair price. That goes beyond an "I think therefore..." mindset since it is from the view of a person interacting within a greater sphere than their own thoughts.

The job's going well. Morning round was completed then fermentation measurements and some tank washing. Next is the secound round of deliveries. How is your job going?

[Ahldagor]

Seriously don't know who Immanuel Kant is? I thought they thought this in school at least.

First thing to get cut in budgets is education, so anyone worth while to read gets tossed. Hell, Twain was almost removed from my highschool because he uses ******.

[maskedmelon]

Seriously don't know who Immanuel Kant is? I thought they thought this in school at least.

They may have, but the likelihood of me remembering is slim in the case of unapplied knowledge. My brain is like working with unaddressed storage space. Stuff just gets dumped and over the long term I won't recall it except by some act of inspiration. And I lack the desire/necessity to build a memory palace.

[Nihilist_santa]

You're right socialism does have a definition.


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Socialist economic systems can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s and of a general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[13] In addition to the debate over markets and planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[2][13] Core dichotomies associated with these concerns include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism. Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralized; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organized through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of, and critical of, unions; and present in both industrialized and developing countries.[29] While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the term "democratic socialism" is often used to highlight its advocates' high value for democratic processes in the economy and democratic political systems,[30] usually to draw contrast to tendencies they may perceive to be undemocratic in their approach. The term is frequently used to draw contrast to the political system of the Soviet Union, which some have argued operated in an authoritarian fashion.




Class is dismissed Santa... maybe you should have attended once or twice.

Christ you're dumb.

Im not dumb you are the one fighting 160 years of socialist history. Did you even read what you posted? Its just more of the same trying to distance themselves from the core ideology. Trying to make distinctions that arent even distinctions but more or less just describe an incrementalist approach to the same outcome. Here is the distinction trying to be made. Soviets were autocratic and socialism-lite pretends to be democratic but only in so much as it is a step towards autocratic socialism.

[maskedmelon]

First thing to get cut in budgets is education, so anyone worth while to read gets tossed. Hell, Twain was almost removed from my highschool because he uses ******.

I was convinced throughout school that it was the mission of public schools to subsidize bad literature.

[dafier]

I remember when I grew up and we had the dewy decibel system in the library and the "N" word meant, 'An ignorant person'.

Public schools are getting worse and for the most part it isn't due to the teachers. It's all of our fault. We need to take the power away from the government and put it in the hands of the locals, city/state and county hands.

In order for the state to get fed money, they have to accept fed curriculum. And, that curriculum is for the dumbest of all our children.

It's a broken system, and it's been broke for decades.

I blame Obama and his Marxist views. And, I blame all the damn libtards

[Nihilist_santa]

They may have, but the likelihood of me remembering is slim in the case of unapplied knowledge. My brain is like working with unaddressed storage space. Stuff just gets dumped and over the long term I won't recall it except by some act of inspiration. And I lack the desire/necessity to build a memory palace.

They just want to sound smart. They want to try to bring up arcane parables that literally have nothing to do with the conversation. He brought up Descarte to try to push some back of the van philosophy of his about why he thinks people follow certain lines of thinking. He brings up some parable from Kant about duty and ethics even though we live in a post modern society that has destroyed values and the traditional institutions that was derived from (family, state, community, racial groups etc).

We need more misology. People like Jews have high verbal I.Q. and the left has used that to build rhetoric which they use to destroy traditional values. People are catching on and are sick of the BS. You guys cant stay on topic because anytime we point out a flaw or failing you want to switch the subject to something else.

[dafier]

People like Jews have high verbal I.Q.

Let me sum that up for you. It's called 'Deceit'.

[Alarti0001]

First thing to get cut in budgets is education, so anyone worth while to read gets tossed. Hell, Twain was almost removed from my highschool because he uses ******.

Well keeping people stupid is one of the best ways to maintain an authoritarian government.

[Alarti0001]

Im not dumb you are the one fighting 160 years of socialist history. Did you even read what you posted? Its just more of the same trying to distance themselves from the core ideology. Trying to make distinctions that arent even distinctions but more or less just describe an incrementalist approach to the same outcome. Here is the distinction trying to be made. Soviets were autocratic and socialism-lite pretends to be democratic but only in so much as it is a step towards autocratic socialism.

Do you even read what you posted? You make a statement then contradict yourself then reaffirm your statement. The faulty thinking your present is fucking comical at this point.

[Nihilist_santa]

Is that why the left traditionally kills off the intelligentsia when taking power and actively promotes "reducation"?

[Nihilist_santa]

Do you even read what you posted? You make a statement then contradict yourself then reaffirm your statement. The faulty thinking your present is fucking comical at this point.

Sorry read your post failed to see any facts or a point even being made. In summary you laughed?

[JurisDictum]

This is how the labels are taught in modern Political Science:

7539

These categories are just ways of grouping methods of governing. They are only as useful as they are distinct. Socialism is often used by the right to denote anything that involves the government redistributing wealth. This however, is not a useful definition of socialism in practical reality. Because among the governments that redistribute wealth, there are massive differences.

In particular, conservatives wish to group all forms of socialism with the early to mid 19th century kind practiced by Stalin. This socialism was very authoritarian and did not remotely live up to any high minded ideals American socialists had. It is also very different from modern democratic socialism countries, which would probably put directly in the middle of this cross. But nevertheless, it allows them to successfully demonize modern democratic socialism -- which is really what the goal is.

[JurisDictum]

Edit: the particular labels of squares are different depending on the book basically. Some say the bottom right one is Capitalism and the upper right one is Fascism -- which I find to be easier to accept for most Americans...but probably less accurate. The very top of the right square is probably Fascism, where Capitalism (as in what we have in America) is more toward the bottom. Most of Asia is closer to Fascism than capitalism IMO (Japan is an obvious exception).

There is a distinction in Europe between Conservative welfare states like Germany -- that want to keep the traditional family in tact and keep hierarchies going -- compared to a Socialist welfare states; which want real equality to be promoted.

[Csihar]

I do think the addition of the vertical scale is necessary as the 'left-right' scale if far too simplistic and inaccurate.

But I think 'libertarian' should be 'anarchy'. That way you're comparing a central government with limited freedom with no government at all.
Libertarianism is also a loaded term because it's been around for a longer time and it can be left-wing.

I also don't like the inclusion of Communism and Capitalism. It should just be 'left' and 'right' politics. Communism is by definition a stateless society so it's also positioned incorrectly.

[JurisDictum]

I do think the addition of the vertical scale is necessary as the 'left-right' scale if far too simplistic and inaccurate.

But I think 'libertarian' should be 'anarchy'. That way you're comparing a central government with limited freedom with no government at all.
Libertarianism is also a loaded term because it's been around for a longer time and it can be left-wing.

I also don't like the inclusion of Communism and Capitalism. It should just be 'left' and 'right' politics. Communism is by definition a stateless society so it's also positioned incorrectly.

Some self-identified Anarchists believe that yea -- but most people see that private property automatically breads inequality of social relations. Most Anarchists don't want power relationships. Then there are those anarchists like Chomsky that argue only unjustified power relationships need to be eliminated (not professors like him, for example). Either way -- most anarchists are either better described as libertarian or don't believe in private property as a right (only an interest).

But if some right leaning people want to call themselves anarchists what am I supposed to say? Your wrong? I guess they are wrong by our modern institutional understanding.

Communism is extreme redistribution and extreme authoritarianism. At least in the real world. You are referring to the utopian communism of Marx that never existed in reality -- where the state withers away.

[Raev]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

[Jorgam]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

Also, please define Fair Share.

Thanks.

[JurisDictum]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

1. ignores the massive roll back of welfare in the 80s, and trys to blame the middle class decline following the 80s on stuff that happened in the 40s-50s (when the middle class came rose and became strong).

2. Obamacare did increase coverage. Deal with it. BTW, the conservative governors purposefully tried to sabotage the program throughout most of conservative America. This is why you notice much more issues with Obamacare in conservative states than liberal ones. All that being said, I want socialized medicine for all. There will still be private medicine for the rich if they want cushy waiting rooms and more patient drs.

3. I want us to change directions when it comes to social programs. I don't want programs that help people subsist in poverty. I want programs that invest in the workforce, programs that train people in skills than place them in jobs. I want programs that allow preferential loans to particularly productive things -- like college and home ownership. In short, I want to take the programs that work in Europe, and modify them as necessary to work for America.

[Lune]

Serious question for you leftists (except Alarti, who is incapable of critical thought). Do you feel this is a fair description of your opinion:

1. We have seen a massive increase in social redistribution programs in the United States during the past 50 years
2. These programs primarily benefit the bureaucracy, e.g. welfare doesn't reduce poverty, Obamacare doesn't increase healthcare coverage, etc
3. You want more social redistribution programs or at least to maintain the ones we have

The largest redistribution that has occurred since the 1950's (The time of the greatest economic equality in US history) has been wealth into the hands of corporations and the financial elite, through deregulation, wage depression, declining union membership, political corruption, globalization, and cultural changes.

I want universal healthcare. I want the government to start trustbusting again and breaking up the monopolies and cartels that have developed in nearly every American industry. I want the traditions and practices of unions to make a comeback so labor isn't getting raped so fucking hard. Not public sector unions. I want business interests and Democrats to stop blocking immigration reform worldwide, depressing wages and driving up safety net costs across Europe and the US. I want multinational corporations to pay the taxes they owe (They use all the benefits of globalization including cheap labor, access to domestic infrastructure, education, and technological sophistication, but still use national borders to hide their money from being taxed).

However, none of the above can happen if the Ayn Rand/Libertarian selfishness and contempt for collective responsibility that spread like a plague since Reagan is wiped out, and none of it can happen until political campaigns are free of bribery. Luckily the voting trends of young people seem to indicate that things are headed in that direction.

I'm not going to argue about your perception of the growth/efficacy of social programs/liberalism over the last 50 years because you continually fail to address my points.