It's Class Warfare Alright.

[NoDrama]

Ever notice that poor people like to own things that make them look richer than they are; nice cars and clothes, which are the worst possible investments that lead to poverty. Rich people like to pretend to be poor, so as to discourage others who would otherwise pretend to be their friends to gain unfair advantage.

 

[redivider]

that's more of a branding issue.

and lets not forget that sometimes it's better to buy a pair of Clarks' brand shoes, that will last you a few years, for 80-150 dollars, than to go and get some generic 25 dollar shoe that'll fall apart in a few weeks, just to buy another and another and another..... they're WAAAY more comfortable too...

i still wear the clark shoes i bought myself almost 8 years ago....

 

[NoDrama]

not at all.

the REAL problem lies in your mentality: take take take, forget that this country of ours is not intended to be used solely for your benefit without giving back in any way.

if everyone employed your morality, this country would be a shit hole. luckily, those that came before you and i were not selfish dumb bastards like you.

put down the ayn rand. seriously, that shit is rotting your brain and the basic foundation of decency that this country stands upon.

I think you are completely wrong in your viewpoint. What I make for myself I get to keep. No one is take take taking anything except what they themselves made. My labor belongs to me and no one else. Some poor people are that way because they are lazy and have no desire to ever work, you know it, I know it, we all KNOW someone who does it. And then we know some people that work 18 hours a day 7 days a week. and you have the balls to say that the man working 126 hours a week is taking advantage of the system and isn't paying enough to support the man that does not work. Its like if I came into your house on Harvest day, took all your weed and gave it to all the stoners who don't know how to grow good weed. Think you might feel a bit put off? What if I told you it was for the good of mankind? How much theft would you put up with? If I took everything you owned until you were destitute would you cry foul? How could you ? You evil person? What ? you don't want to share with the rest of the people who are poor?

 

[NoDrama]

that's more of a branding issue.

and lets not forget that sometimes it's better to buy a pair of Clarks' brand shoes, that will last you a few years, for 80-150 dollars, than to go and get some generic 25 dollar shoe that'll fall apart in a few weeks, just to buy another and another and another..... they're WAAAY more comfortable too...

i still wear the clark shoes i bought myself almost 8 years ago....

You have worn the same pair of shoes every day for 8 years? Thats kind of disgusting.

You should have let the dear departed Sam Walton know he had brand issues, he drove a beat up old pickup truck and wore overalls. He had a few bucks.

 

[redivider]

i don't wear them every day lol

more like 4-5 times per week. and they're still rockin.

they have a 'used' smell to them

 

[WillyBagseed]

so let me break this down for y'all. social democrats merely wish to ignore the freedoms of the individual in order to support the fallacies of social equality. unbridled democracy, otherwise known as mob rule, operates solely on the theory of might makes right. it protects only those who have the numbers to force their agenda on others and opposes the concept of earned influence and the rights of the individual in general.

What part of Social Democrats(that you are posting about) and Democratic Socialism do you not understand. They are not the same thing, are you dyslexic?

That would be like me saying all Libertarians are Anarchists and all Republicans are Fascist.

I like your "earned influence" line....... nothing like promoting "I got mine and a lot of it" so I will now be bribing politicians..... errrr .. donating to their campaigns.

 

[UncleBuck]

Its like if I came into your house on Harvest day, took all your weed and gave it to all the stoners who don't know how to grow good weed. Think you might feel a bit put off?

that is not at all what it is like. that is the worst analogy i have ever heard.

what i am describing is that people like muyloco don't seem to realize that the soil to grow in would be infertile if not for the work of many before him. i could not even have a harvest day if the soil is infertile because the plants wouldn't grow.

now say i leech all the amendments out of that soil in my growing, keep ALL the harvest, and give nothing back to the fund that keeps the soil rich and fertile. what do you think will happen next year when you plant? that is the vision that people like you and muyloco espouse when you claim that it is all yours, and any amount is akin to theft.

we all have a part in maintaining the greatness of this country, you do not get to take advantage of our great nation and contribute nothing back. well, check that, you CAN do that...but you would be like the asshole flying up the shoulder cutting off all the drivers who patiently merged.

no one likes that guy.

selfishness is not a virtue unless you are in that "just read ayn rand and am fucked in the head" phase.

i will gladly give back part of the harvest to make sure the soil is still there to use for next year, and i will mock with scorn and derision those who do not get the simple precept that you live in the land of opportunity thanks to others that came before you doing the same.

 

[WillyBagseed]

Buck, since the coming of the "me" generation in the 80's the greedy retards have come out of the woodwork and will not be going away. They either do not care or are under informed of what it takes to live in a civilized society. If we really did every last thing these pretend Libertarians wanted we would have a civil war, period.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Again you miss the distinction between supporting and holding up as an example the asshole that gives nothing back and defending his/her right to be that asshole. All I hear from your side of the aisle is "take take take" with no regard to the rights of the people you want to take it from. It doesn't matter if they can afford it, it doesn't matter that they SHOULD want to help out, you don't give the government the power to make those decisions for them. The end does not justify the means.

And I think No Drama's analogy is spot on. Charity and giving back is personal and shouldn't be mandated.

 

[UncleBuck]

Buck, since the coming of the "me" generation in the 80's the greedy retards have come out of the woodwork and will not be going away. They either do not care or are under informed of what it takes to live in a civilized society. If we really did every last thing these pretend Libertarians wanted we would have a civil war, period.

if we did everything the pretend libertarians wanted, "my antonia" would be a modern day tale.

 

[UncleBuck]

Charity and giving back is personal and shouldn't be mandated.

we're not talking about charity, we are talking about keeping america the strongest nation on earth, the land of opportunity.

in case you weren't paying attention.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Oh I'm paying attention. You're talking about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. You can dress it up with all the flowery rhetoric you like, but that's what it boils down to. That used to be called charity, now you call it a responsibility and want it enforced.

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh I'm paying attention. You're talking about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. You can dress it up with all the flowery rhetoric you like, but that's what it boils down to. That used to be called charity, now you call it a responsibility and want it enforced.

haves and have nots?

am i talking to karl marx?

i am talking about everyone doing their part to ensure this is the land of opportunity, not just one class or the other.

talk about class warfare, you're playing it.

 

[bedspirit]

your first mistake is the assumption that i am against assisting the poor. just how many times in this thread alone have i stated that it is the abuse and scope of the system that i find fault with? your second error is in assuming i have no problem with "corporate welfare". the very idea that the taxpayer should have to bail out "too big to fail" corporations is a page right out of the statist playbook and is a blatant case of government too neatly in bed with business.

on the other hand, what gets lumped in as "corporate welfare" is not just such handouts and sweetheart loans as we have seen lately. yours is the perfect example of the sorts of trade-offs made every day to bring revenue into a city. you may not like walmart, but it is among the largest private sector employers in the country today. you may not like the low wages and lack of benefits packages, but the unskilled and semi-skilled workers that they are employing must be trained for their duties and are easily replaceable. though there are few career openings in such a store, it is gainful employment that allows people to make their own way in the world. that the opening of a walmart often spells the end of many mom and pop enterprises is regrettable, but the battle between mass marketing and niche stores has been going on for longer than these warehouse stores have been around. when the concept of supermarkets first came on the scene, they were seen as the death knell for the independent butchers, bakers and grocers that had held the market up to that point. supermarkets are now considered the mainstay of the industry, leaving the smaller specialty stores to find their niche or fold. is it so odd that a city might be willing to give a few breaks to a company that offers massive employment opportunities to its less fortunate and under educated citizens, brings business from outside the city and provides a constant revenue stream for civic improvements?

the difference between individual and corporate welfare is that something is demanded in return for one and the other is simply charity. the notions that food stamps act as stimulus or that government mandated handouts are anything more than a temporary and often deleterious solution to poverty are insipid political gestures. that they are a necessary part of sustaining society is obvious, but attempting to paint them as a positive indicator of our civilization is ludicrous.

I just get tired of reading all of your crap about welfare. That is the least of the problems we face in this country and when I see you go on and on endlessly about it, I start thinking that you see this as a really big deal. It's not. Once we fix our fucked up foreign policy, our corporate welfare state (it costs us much more than regular welfare), get rid of the fed, and adjust our trade policy, then maybe welfare would be a big deal. Right now it ain't shit.

You talk about the benefits of having stores like Walmart around, but do you like them so much that you feel government should be helping them succeed? Were you in favor of using your tax dollars to give them an unfair advantage in the market place? If so, then maybe should look in the mirror next time you want to call someone a statist. Actually, why don't you just stop using that term altogether. You sound like friggin Mark Levine.

 

[undertheice]

What part of Social Democrats(that you are posting about) and Democratic Socialism do you not understand. They are not the same thing, are you dyslexic?

well excuse me for lumping the socialist buffoons in with the quasi-socialist buffoons. i suppose you would like to gloss over the fact that the post in question applies all the more to your particular brand of madness.

as for earned influence, what part of making worthwhile contributions to the economic well-being of the community do you find most reprehensible and why should the investments of capital have any less voice than the investments of labor? is it sheer numbers that make a decision correct or is it that those with the most material possessions to lose should expect to be taken advantage of by the envious mob and graciously consent to being raped by unbridled democracy?

i could go round and round with you statists all day and still nothing would be resolved. you see our right to self-ownership as negotiable, while i see it as an absolute. your all for one and one for all ideology is most commendable up to the point at which you use the violent force of the state to impose it on the unwilling.

 

[UncleBuck]

well excuse me for lumping the socialist buffoons in with the quasi-socialist buffoons. i suppose you would like to gloss over the fact that the post in question applies all the more to your particular brand of madness.

as for earned influence, what part of making worthwhile contributions to the economic well-being of the community do you find most reprehensible and why should the investments of capital have any less voice than the investments of labor? is it sheer numbers that make a decision correct or is it that those with the most material possessions to lose should expect to be taken advantage of by the envious mob and graciously consent to being raped by unbridled democracy?

i could go round and round with you statists all day and still nothing would be resolved. you see our right to self-ownership as negotiable, while i see it as an absolute. your all for one and one for all ideology is most commendable up to the point at which you use the violent force of the state to impose it on the unwilling.

 

[NoDrama]

UTI's Purple prose is a lot better than yours.

 

[undertheice]

I just get tired of reading all of your crap about welfare. That is the least of the problems we face in this country and when I see you go on and on endlessly about it, I start thinking that you see this as a really big deal. It's not. Once we fix our fucked up foreign policy, our corporate welfare state (it costs us much more than regular welfare), get rid of the fed, and adjust our trade policy, then maybe welfare would be a big deal. Right now it ain't shit.

You talk about the benefits of having stores like Walmart around, but do you like them so much that you feel government should be helping them succeed? Were you in favor of using your tax dollars to give them an unfair advantage in the market place? If so, then maybe should look in the mirror next time you want to call someone a statist. Actually, why don't you just stop using that term altogether. You sound like friggin Mark Levine.

you may not like the term statist because of the basic truths which it implies. the mentality that has led us to our constantly expanding welfare state is exactly what is behind every problem you've mentioned. we have given over so much of the private sector's power to government that it is free to do as it pleases. it wages whatever wars it desires in the name of whichever brand of populism is currently in vogue and we merely accept it. it introduces over-regulation that only corporate entities can weather, forcing smaller businesses to close up shop and increasing prices to consumers, and we applaud their diligence. it hands out billions to favored businesses and foreign investors and no one but the few even bat an eye. it is statist ideology that abandons the concept of individual liberty in favor of the populist glad-handing of political animals in a never ending popularity contest.

i rant against the welfare state because it is the most obvious physical sign of our deteriorating morality. it is designed strictly to provide us with a dependent underclass, poll fodder for the proponents of centralized control. we bitch about this damnable prohibition, but it is just another aspect of that control. we bitch about the collaboration of big business with our unresponsive representatives, but this too is an aspect of the power we invest in centralized authority. we blame business, we blame the rich, we blame whichever party is currently in power or seems in opposition to our desires, we blame everyone else for our own complacency and our willingness to pass responsibility on to a higher authority. this is statism and it's a piss poor example of the decision making capability of a supposedly intelligent and enlightened population.

 

[undertheice]

UTI's Purple prose is a lot better than yours.

c'mon now, that bit only had a tinge of lavender around the edges.

 

[NoDrama]

we're not talking about charity, we are talking about keeping america the strongest nation on earth, the land of opportunity.

in case you weren't paying attention.

We lost that status a long time ago my friend, now were just the big bully on the block, and we owe EVERYONE! Opportunities have been drying up at an ever increasing pace. You find opportunities in Asia now. Ive been Paying attention longer than you have been alive.