Why IS Mommy a Democrat???
Created on: October 13th, 2006
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texaggie79 | $7.47 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $7.47 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.87) | 149 | 5 | 219 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,154 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 49 | https://www.bing.com |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 2 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 1 | http://www.google.com |
| 1 | http://mommycode.net/ |
indeed, indoctrinated children into politics (and religion for that matter) is stupid, merely because its beyond childrens understanding. to me, its borderline and sometimes flat out abuse. there are some political "kids books" out there meant as satire, and thats a different story altogether - however why anyone'd rather read those is beyond me.
Yeah, it's me again. I see you've departed from religious crap, at least for the moment. The reason I'm fiving this isn't because of any political views... hell, I don't even live in America, so I have no right to comment on America's tangled politics anyway. But the thing is, I love to see bullsh*t propaganda like that get the smackdown. That's an incredibly low blow... trying to gain votes by convincing obsessive parents that somehow the other side is bad for families.
"Now kids, what do you call it when you treat people as equals when they aren't?" "Communism!" Books like these aren't fit for kids, just like that book that describes how Hillary and union leaders wants to molest you in your sleep. We're just better off making sure our children think for themselves and don't just agree with authority (including parents) "just because."
Way to call public education a monopoly. That right there discredits anything else you might possibly even consider beginning to think about contemplating. Read a god damn book on the subject before you go spouting ludicrous statements. It is not a for profit system, therefor categorizing its competition in market based terms is completely ludicrous. I could write for a couple pages on the topic but you can go research it for yourself. God, people are stupid.
"State governments can define who it recognizes as married legally. The
federal government should have no say on that matter." Unless it violates the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. Slavery is not legal, no matter how many legislators in Alabama want it to be. Stop talking, please. Don't ever write anything again. You're just making a mockery of yourself.
And yes, affording rights to some citizens rather than others based on a religious custom is against the constution. Thus, the need for marriage to be interpreted as civil union (otherwise it should not be legally recognized). If it is interpreted as civil union, then discriminating by sexual orientation is unconstitutional and in the next decade or so once the Christicans are out of power the hypocrisy will end.
korf comes in with his uneducated, yet hysterical arrogant comments, yay. Hey korf, tell you what. How bout we take the government, and we put it in charge of the internet? It will just give it away for free and be funded by our tax dollars. It won't be a monopoly because korf says so!!! Yay. Government should run more businesses korf Marx says so. And being recognized as a married couple is not a right, its a privilege just as is a driving license.
Education is underprovided if it is treated as a private good. Education is a fundamental ideal of democracy. Without informed citizens you get mob rule. Thus, education must be provided in some other fashion. One way is by using school vouchers, another is by using charter schools. Studies on the effects of these sytems have not yielded as drastic differences as had been expected. Students assigned at random to attend better high schools in Chicago showed no statistically significant difference to those...
who did not. Thus, simply treating it as a, "You get what you pay for" private good is a completely ridiculous and unfounded statement. Now you acting on the pretense that you have a clue is pretty hysterical and arrogant. You probably haven't ever even looked into the points that you make. You just think that intuition trounces evidence? Come on now. You at least should be stupid enough to realize how stupid you are.
"tax dollars taken by force." Wow, now that is a gem of a statement. You propose a government that is funded purely on donations? Is anyone actually paying attention to the things this guy is saying? Are you honestly kidding me? Can you name one government in the history of the world that hasn't taken tax dollars by force? Or do you just think that sensationalism can take the place of honest discourse? Is that your contention?
That's as far as I made it through, too, like 3 slides. I could continue, but I doubt you want me to. You should at least put up some sort of veil of evidence. Simply spouting off ignorant opinion on matters which have libraries of evidence is not the best way to make yourself seem the unbiased, accurate person that your news programs would want you to be.
What evidence do you want? That privatized education far exceeds public? Do you really want to play that game? I know what you are korf. You are an elite. You believe you are so far more informed than the regular citizen that you must, through government, lookout for them and their helpless stupidity. Try this on for size. Our government requires that parents keep their children fed. Yet.... are the vast majority of kids eating out of the government's hands? How can we allow private industry to provide food
That doesn't sound very elitist to me. Elitists would let the poor people starve to death and call it natural selection. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing that education for all is a cornerstone of democratic ideals? If you are, then I mean... I don't really know what to say. That's typically assumed that people understand this. If you're saying our country doesn't believe in democratic ideals... well, again, I don't know what to say.
There is original constitutional means in which to fund our federal government, but only to the point in which it was originally intended to run. If you want evidence, we only need to examine the world countries. The more government regulated the country is, the lower the GDP. Socialism only leads to poverty. Proven 100 times over, and yet idiots like you in small countries still vote for socialists because they are uneducated in economics.
Now, when you talk about privatized education, you sound like the elitist. Privatization methods can be used, but since poor families don't have the ability to pay for what would be considered sufficient education in order to protect the wellbeing of our populace as a whole there must be some sort of subsidy program. Disagreeing with the status quo as far as the public school system is fine and quite common, but disagreeing with government funding of education is quite obviously elitist...
Try to grasp this korf. It is required that parents provide food for their children, however it is expected that they acquire said food through private means. The same should be true with education. Charity, cannot exist when the government holds a monopoly on it. If people didn't have their wages garnished by force, they would be more inclined to help the poor. On top of that, America is the most charitable nation on the planet. Imagine if we were allowed to do it out of true charity and not have it forced
undemocratic and quite ignorant of the economic and social factors that one must consider. If you're calling me an academic elitist because I act like I know more on the subject... and I do know more on the subject... then this does not seem like a damaging claim. In fact, I have studied this subject and you obviously have not. I would hope that you treat yourself as an elitist in physics relative to a kingergartener. If you don't, well then you've got a warped sense of reality.
It seems to me that all evidence points to the contrary of your claims, as the government subsizes both food and education for families who cannot afford it. This does not in any way point to your claim that parents must provide food and education for their children. It points to me to be a socialist notion which we adopted many years ago and maintain still, even under our current elitist president.
"Elitists believe they are better than the rest of the public. Recognizing
that every possible form of government will allways be corrupt and
impossible to correct is not elitist. It's called being a realist." How does this relate at all to the discussion? This is completel irrelevent. Nowhere have I discussed the efficiency of the government. We are discussing the merits of publicly funded education. Even if the public funding is corrupt and ineficient it does not necessitate that it is worse...
Our president is a socialist. We are being held back as a nation because of sheep like you that have just bought into the idea that only government can care for the poor. And that, in and of itself breeds more impoverished people, who have a sense of entitlement and are not motivated to actually be responsible for their own lives.
than privatization. Honestly, you're just talking out of your *ss now. I'd love to teach you about how to debate the correct topic but that's what your university is for. And, if you go to Texas A&M or some other public university... well then you're a hypocrite. Also all that charity talk is also irrelevent to the conversation. Especially considering you are talking about the largest economy in the world... if we aren't the most charitable in volume then something is severely wrong.
Oh, right, and what I actually came back here to say. Upon further review, you gotta question how much this book (or at elast the parts you show) are actually propoganda. It can just as easily be a way to explain liberal philosophy in terms a child can understand. Yes, there's anti-conservative imagery, but that's just a dark inside joke. No child is going to see that elephant, develop a fear of it, and therefore never support republicans. That's just ridiculous.
That's because schooling and food are very different. Food is one-shot whereas schooling is continuous. You might use food stamps once a week but a kid will be in the same school for years. You gonna yank a kid out of his school in january because his family's financial situation's changed? It's just not practical.
"We are being held back as a nation because of
sheep like you that have just bought into the idea that only government can
care for the poor. And that, in and of itself breeds more impoverished
people, who have a sense of entitlement and are not motivated to actually
be responsible for their own lives." Actually, I rely on evidence not belief. Your propoganda fails miserably. Ending now because you refuse to speak rationally.
But seriously... Republicans don't want to make people poor... They want to make them Christians and enforce their moral system on others while at the same time enlarging government controls... Unfortunatley... Democrats want to do the same thing except about the Christian part. Personally... I'd settle for Norway's or Sweeden's Government. Socialism does work, but you need to keep greedy *ssh*l*es out of government to do so... Which won't happen in the United States anytime soon.
The point would be bettering society. No, most people today don't think like that; they don't really care about bettering society. Is it possible for most people to think that way? I believe so. How can we make it happen? I don't know, it doesn't seem easy. But it sure as hell will never happen if we foster a society which encourages selfcentered behavior.
BTW, you never said were one should turn for help if not the government (I assume this refers to the poor, since people with money can just buy help). I mean, if everyone is greedy (which apparently is the ideal) then the poor are f*cked because then the only way to get anyone to do anything would be to pay them, which the poor can't afford to do.
I am all for private charity. I donate money at time towards many of them. Government is not the place for charity, and your fellow man is more generous when he gives of his own free will, and is not forced to. And if you would study history, selfishness has served for the betterment of society . For it is self driven success that has lead to almost all the innovations and breakthroughs our society has seen. Because if you better society, you are going to get rich from it, as well you should.
Why should anyone ever give money? That's not being greedy at all; it's the opposite. Isn't greed "$#%ing great?" And no, you won't get rich just from bettering society, that's ridiculous. Somebody could spend as much time as they could volunteering for good causes, working for money only the minimal amount needed to sustain their existance, and they certainly won't get rich, but they'll certainly be helping society.
Zak, they are free to do that if they so wish. However, the people that do seek getting rich for their work, they actually do more to help society. Because they provide jobs. They spend their money. Now I'm not knocking people who live modestly and help others, they do what they know and if they are happy, that's all that matters. But I'll be damned if my government is going to force people to live that way. Go live in europe and suffer with the rest of them. Don't destroy my country.
The government need only concern itself when one thing happens. Someone's right's are violated. The government forcing you to be anything is unconstitutional. We are a nation founded under liberty, not "hey let's let the majority decide how we should live and force the rest to follow." If I want to be selfish and not give a dime to charity, that's my right as a human being.
Now, that being said, greed is good because it drives man to succeed. As I illustrated in the above post. A person that gets rich bettering society actually does more to help society than someone who remains poor. Wealthy people drive the economy, they employ workers, they spread the money throughout the market. Now if greed gets to the point where it violates another person's rights, then, and only then, is it "bad".
As for "exploiting workers". That does not exist in a free market, and especially not in our nation. Do you realize that our unemployment rate is at around 4%. Far less than any socialist eurotrash country. Or communist South American country. What that means is, if you don't like the way your employer treats you, you go find a better job. Something that is demonstratively easy in our job market. Government has no right to set standards of how a company employs it's people. People are free to choose jobs.
On top of that, they can create their own job, in our thriving economy, and easy small business laws. Stop listening to communist unions who want your money, stop listening to Lou Dobbs, stop listening to socialist anti-liberty democrats, and realize that only YOU can control your job quality, and in no way is that the responsibility of your employer. Furthermore minimum wage is nothing but a burden to the poor and youth of america.
"Socialism not only does not work (look to Canada or any Europeans
healthcare system) but it is a gross violation of our freedom.
Redistribution of wealth is a direct slight in the face of liberty. You
have no right to redistribute wealth." a gross violation of our freedom? sounds like you want the courts to intervene...you should know where i'm going with this.
"If I want to be selfish and not give a dime to charity, that's my right as a human being." And if everyone decided to do that and be greedy (which is good), then the poor and helpless would be screwed, which is bad. You can't have a system that relies both on human greed and on human sympathy at the same time. It doesn't make sense.
"Wealthy people drive the economy, they employ workers, they spread the money throughout the market. " Actually, the very rich can accumulate a large concentration of money under themselves, money that might never be spent. And if they're greedy, then it probably won't. "As for "exploiting workers". That does not exist in a free market, and especially not in our nation. Do you realize that our unemployment rate is at around 4%. " Exploited workers dont quit, they keep working b/c they have no choice.
"Government has no right to set standards of how a company employs it's people. " If they didn't do it here, we'd have exploited workers. Since it's illegal here, businesses get labor from countries where it is legal. If one is greedy, one can literally go and sell human rights and dignity, not to mention trash the environment for money as well. Some things are more important than money...
Of #@$@ing course you can have a system that relies on greed and compassion. We have done it since the founding of our great nation. Anyone can act out of greed and compassion at the same time. It's not a zero sum game. However, the government should not promote either. The government should stay the hell out of the way, until someone's rights are violated.
Zak, it would help if you would take a course on basic economics, at least. When rich people make money, the reason they are rich, is because they know how to invest it. They don't go hide their money away. They put it to work. And by doing so, they stimulate the economy, they fund companies that hire employees.
I love how confounded people are when I tell them that minimum wage hurts the poor. They are so brainwashed by socialist ideals that they just can't open their mind to any facts. To understand how minimum wage hurts the poor and youth, you need to get a basic grasp of economics. How our job market works, how employers pay their employees. You see a wage is not just some arbitrary number. A wage is how much an employer can afford to pay someone for a given job, and still make profit.
When the government comes in and arbitrarily assigns a minimum amount that any job can pay, that then makes the jobs that are only worth less than minimum wage implausible. Yes there are jobs out there that just aren't worth more than $5 an hour. Also, the uneducated and underexperienced cannot compete for jobs when the government forbids them competing with compensation. Some jobs are worth more in experience than actual pay. You can't have that with a minimum wage. It cheats the youth and the poor.
Socialism (The next evolution of liberalism) does not work because it snuffs the initiative of the individual to rescue the unmotivated. If you knew that, no matter how hard you worked at you job, no matter how many extra hours you stayed there, you wouldn't see an extra dime, you wouldn't wok very hard, would you? In our system, the people who work hard as hell, make more money, and are allowed to have a better material life. If they want to donate some of that extra money to the poor, thats their decision
You put it better than I did Agent. Thank you. It's just funny, no matter how many times history has proven these facts, people refuse to see them. If you could make an economy and society work hard "for the greater good" the Soviet Union should have worked. People just aren't going to work harder simply because others in society choose to work less.
You're missing the point. It's illogical to have a system where greed gets you ahead, yet expect some people in the system to be supported by the sympathy of others. If EVERYONE tries to get ahead (very plausible situation I'd say) then some people end up screwed, and to me that's certainly a bad thing.
And I didnt say the rich do lock their money away in a bank account, I was just pointing it out as a possibility. And I now understand the issue with minimum wage, though at the same time it prevents labor-saturated markets from ending up with exploited workers (enter the uneducated poor with the lack of public education). Again... probably no easy answer...
And of course socialism isn't going to work if everyone is going to be a greedy bastard about it. You can't take the mindset of one system and apply it to another, that obviously isn't going to work. The thing to understand is that in communism you don't work for yourself, you work for society. You do things for the benefit of your fellow man. Look at early maoist china: those farmers worked their asses off, and why? Because they thought they were helping their country.
Were they really? Ehh. But the point is, people can get motivated to help someone other than themselves, and if society is ever to advance, they damn well better. Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by this or that. From a neutral perspective it could be you that's brainwashed. What I'm saying is, just stop being such an ass; it makes people more receptive.
Finally, the fact that you insult europeans as opposed to pitying them because their government forces them to live in misery makes me think that you not so much philosophically opposed to socialism as you are terrified of it, like many americans are. And this is often due to? OMG, propoganda! See, I'm totally with the point of this here YTMND.
Socialism and Communism are not even acceptable arguments. I cannot respect anyone that cannot see fact for fact. Sure they would work in a fairytale land where everyone loved everyone, and everyone wasn't lazy. But that's never going to happen, therefor socialism and communism will never , ever, ever work.
And yes, I am terrified of socialism. While I do pity the Europeans who live under it, we are moving closer and closer to complete socialism in our own country because our citizens are uneducated on economics. It terrifies me to think that our beautiful nation could become just another welfare state with people rioting when the government allows companies to fire bad workers.
Make that PRIVATE american industry. And with politicians often in the pockets of big corporations (where else are they supposed to get campaign funding?), you'd think the laws would be made in the interest of greedy, rich businesses. And did you not read my example about china? People CAN work for someone other than themselves. As social organisms, it's only logical. It's a societal thing, really; how people are raised.
Look at the things America HAS accomplished under Capitalism: Going from a handfull of colonies to one of the last world powers in just 300 years, the automobile, the airplane, spaceflight, a plethora of medical breakthroughs, the computer, the list goes on and on. Most of those things were created so that whoever created them could get rich, but can you dispute the positive impact they have had on the global society?
LMAO those farmers in China weren't working to better "society". They were working for their government, or more accurately, fear of their government. That's why socialism must slide down to communism. There is no way, other than in a dream world that you can rid society of lazy people, selfish people, or incompetent people. And until you do, Socialism will never be a viable option.
What are you talking about? The farmers supported mao. They werent afraid of him, they loved him. And they thought what he told them to do would help everyone. Also laziness is not an issue. I dont see how incompetence, unless its extremely widespread, is a problem either. The only obstacle is selfishness, which if not through societal change then through genetic manipulation, can be severely reduced. But like I said, never will that work through society if society continues to encourage selfcentered greed.
If you have ever managed any workers, you would know that if people know that they will get paid the same no matter what, they will do the absolute least amount of work possible. No one is getting out of bed and working their @ss off for the "betterment of society". Especially when society as it is is as f'ed up as it is.
It's clear you are absolutely unable, at the moment, to conceive a society different in any significant way fromt he one you currently live in. This is arrogance; the society you happen to be a part of is NOT the only possible one. At the same time, I don't blame you; when you spend your entire life with something as a constant, it obviously becomes difficult to consider anything else a possibility.
"Democrats are actually moderate conservatives im my opinion." hmm lets see... abortion on demand ? open borders with mexico? raising taxes? large bloated government? NO PLAN ( find me a stated plan in words from one dempcrat and i will sponsor your site) for if they win in 06/08? weak on defense? weak on national security? i dont thnk i need to go on.
Why are you obsessed with the Swiftboat vets? The only reason they were pertinent was that they did not support Kerry, a soldier with whom they served. I don't care about if Kerry really shot some wussy in the back, or front. The man was running for the most powerful position in the world. It's quite relevant how his own platoon from Viet Nam felt about how he would serve as a leader. All that matters is they did not support him. And why should they, after how he lied about soldiers and their actions?
BTW, what is it that I should have said about the Swift Boat Vets? "Well this is just a dirty political trick, Kerry represented himself as a soldier very well." ?? Why don't I just think that Jane Fonda was a patriot as well? Why you are obsessed with a pointless little nothing is quite entertaining.
Oh my God, I'm tired of propaganda YTMNDs. This site isn't the place for this stuff. For the record, I'm not picking on your because of your political beliefs. I would've 1'd this if you were making an anti-Republican site. Although, it figures that rambling tripe like this would come from an Aggie. It's hard to get a well-rounded world view in a cesspool like College Station.
Hmm. I recall it being a democrat who was found with 100k hidden in his freezer. Course that was campaign money. Anyways, true conservatives are against income tax, and any other unnecessary tax. How do we fund all these social government programs? We don't. They are unconstitutional, and the federal government has no business running them.
"How do we fund all these
social government programs? We don't. They are unconstitutional, and the
federal government has no business running them." Apparently the Supreme Court is either wrong or incompetent, either of which don't bode well for our country. Also, barring ammendments made well after the constitution was the basis of our government, the constitution allowed slavery. Not exactly a shining moral standard. Also texaggie is a f*cking clown.
And what is Texaggie's answer? Slash taxes to the rich and the megacorporations sending our labor overseas. Then use remaining tax money to give kickbacks to said companies, because of course, whatever is good for the corporations, is good for Americans. Even though fewer and fewer actually employ Americans. And even though none of them need the pork we stuff their bottomless gullets with.
There is also an interesting parallel to be drawn between the communism you see lurking around every corner and the form of government it seems you support. Under a Plutocracy (which is what you seem to advocate) the poor can work as hard as they please and never become more successful than their parents- or very rarely so. A select few, the Power Elite, wield the vast majority of funds, property and power to influence the masses. That doesn't sound at ALL like communism, does it?
You are blind sir. And sadly a large portion of our country is, because of idiots like the democrat party. If kids would get a REAL economics education in school they would know that if they work hard they can make plenty of money. You see with a free market, we have supply and demand. If you supply something that is in demand, you will make money. However when you have a socialist government coming in and arbitrarily assigning salaries you screw up supply and demand.
The ignorant workers of our nation can't see the forest for the trees, and when their jobs are no longer in enough demand to merit the salaries they need, they need to go fill a demand that does. And they can do it. It's the stupid socialist liberals again that $#@ everything up by telling middle and lower class workers that they are one trick ponies, and that they NEED a socialist nanny government to take care of them or they will starve. It's all government created BS. So we keep the bastards in power.
One word. AMERICA. When property rights are respected, there is no need to interfere with market prices of jobs. All you do by overpricing the pay for a job is make us less efficient. You seem to follow the idea of "let's cover our ears and eyes and just give everyone a wage that they can live with, no matter what meaningless job they do". You completely take away the mechanism to force our workforce into a demanded market.
You cannot use any examples from decades or centuries ago. Technology and communican enable any free American to pursue any career they so choose, and if they fill a need, they will be financially rewarded for it. If they seek a career in a field that is in low demand, how is you telling the government to tell the employer to pay them so much money going to better our economy?
I respect you Texaggie79, opinions like yours need to be heard more often, I used to go on similar rants but its exhausting trying to sway the opinion of ignorant socialists. Personally I'm a libertarian, but I vote republican. Unfortunately its a two party system, if people split their votes between the libertarians and the republicans all it does is insure a democrat victory. So, vote republican - slay this beast.
No. That's what conservatives promise, not what they deliver, for the most part. What's more, they cut taxes repeatedly and spend without thought to who is going to pay the tab. Why? Because they know when they drive us deep enough into debt, they can just step aside and let the Dems/Libs raise taxes and take the fall for them. Their political philosophy is the epitome of irresponsibility.
I find it ironic that the fringe of Socialism is Communism, and the fringe of Libertarianism is Plutocracy, or even Anarchy, yet Libertarians pretend to be infinitely superior to socialists. You would rather live under one of the latter two than Communism? I would opt out of all three myself. But you already know what you want to think, and will ignore whatever truth you find in my arguments. So. HEY EVERYONE, LET'S GO VOTE FROM OUR WALLETS!
Subjective claims. And give the Horatio Alger crap ("Anyone can be as rich as they want!!1") a rest. Statistics show that in the past few decades, and especially recently, financial mobility has dwindled even more in the U.S. Meaning, it's harder to get rich. Hard work equals wealth? Tell that to the lifers at a meat-packing plant. Or one of the few automobile plants left stateside. A good deal of becoming wealthy is initiative, lack of things to lose, and LUCK.
If you work hard, and are educated in how to market yourself, you can become quite rich. I have chem engineers, programing project managers, electrical engeneers in my close family. The richest of them all is a truck driver. He has no college degree. He has been driving 18 wheelers since he was 18. He now owns his own truck and picks his hauls. He works longer hours then everyone else, but he still makes more money.
A truck driver that can make over 150k a year without owning his own company.
I mean seriously, there are no socialists in congress. If there were, this world would be a better place. Both dems and republicans are greedy capitalist parties that only protect our rights so long as they line their pockets. I just don't know where to start with you. All I have to say is please learn about what communism actually is (I suggest from somewhere that isn't the von mises institute or fascist party of america). Democrats are dispicable, as are the republicans. Libertarians? They're utopians
Libertarianism will bring happiness to any who wish to work for it. Communism and Socialism will bring misery to everyone as proven country after country after country.
Libertarianism looks at rights. Those self evident rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Communism and Socialism look at enslavement through what they perceive as rights, however those so called "rights" enslave others.
One has no right to someone else's money or time.
Libertarianism will only bring misery for working people. No government regulation in business? That's regression! People have worked hard and died just to achieve the 8 hour work day, if libertarians gain control we can all say hello to corporate slavery. I understand your misconceptions of socialism, all americans have been brainwashed to believe the same stereotypes. In truth, communism is the liberation of everyone from hierarchy and wage slavery. You talk about communism taking away money...
when in truth under communism you will receive full ownership of your labor and will not have to worry about some greedy capitalist profiting off of your labor. The money that is distributed is taken out of taxes just as the money is now, except this money will go towards human needs. Your libertarianism is really just pure unregulated capitalism and nothing more. You may as well advocate regressing into feudalism.
Human needs LMAO you are pathetic. You want to sit at home and earn off of the working people don't you. Be truthful here, we already know it. We are a nation founded on liberty and civil rights. You have no right to the money I earn through whatever means, so long as it is legal. You have no right to anyone's labor. That is what you advocate, a collective ownership of everyone's labor. So we all share in the misery. The pursuit of happiness can only be successful if you have FULL ownership of your property
Happiness comes from true liberty. True ownership. Knowing that if you work harder than your neighbor you will profit more than he. That is something communism denies us. Wealth for our hard work. And that, sir, is what drives us as the most innovative, productive, fastest progressing country to ever exist on this planet. If I can't live in a country where a man with a great idea and hard work can't become a billionaire, I don't want to live at all. Not that I would ever make more than 6 figures at the most
see in many cases they're not "working their *ss off" for SH*T. seriously, once one person in your immediate family gets rich, you can invest your way to death. and so can your kids, and their kids, and their kids. Do you honestly think paris hilton deserves as much money as someone who actually comes from nothing (or at least less than FILTHY F*CKING RICH), like (even though i hate them all) Oprah, or Britney Spears, just because she was able to sit on her ass? SHE WILL INHERIT MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER MAKE
remember that last sentence and then try to peddle this bullsh*t to me. Communism isn't perfect, but it's better than the clusterf*ck we've got going now. And if public education was MORE communistic it'd work. At a state (or even national) level, distribute education dollars equally among schools (with variations based on elementary, middle, and high schools). Then we can finally ACTUALLY level the playing field, and get rid of the travesty that is Affirmative action. Seriously, f*ck you yuppie.
What #@$#@ing right is it of yours to say what Paris' Parents or grandparents do with the money they earned? How $%#ing dare you insinuate that you should have a say in what happens to money that you did not raise! Money (representative of products and services in our market) is a property that we own. Are you #@$%ing trying to tell me that Paris' Parents can't do whatever the hell they want with that money? I bet you were one of those "time out" kids. Coddled and made to think that life has to be fair.
And no public education system would EVER work. Simply because it is ran by government, and government 100% of the time will always be corrupt. The private market could easily handle our nation's education needs. Private charities as well as charitable schools would provide for the kids who's parents can't afford their education. Charity belongs in the private sector where we can control them by our money and who gets it. A libertarian country would be 100 fold more charitable than a socialist one.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link