Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

The Green New Deal

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aquila King
31 minutes ago, joc said:

Your thinking is 180 degrees out of phase.   

Once again, the sheer level of irony here simply cannot be understated.

You are literally saying the exact opposite of what is true. You might as well be telling me the sky is down and the ground is up. Everything you're saying here is completely and totally backward.

33 minutes ago, joc said:

Let's talk some specifics because your painting broadly with a brush of pure ignorance.

If I go to Home Depot...it is because they have something there that I want.  But Lowes has the same exact thing.  All  you are seeing is the greedy, nameless rich b******* that run the corporation at the top and get paid millions to do it....while the workers make zilch!  That's not how it is.  I...little old me...me, myself and I ...all by myself make all those rich b******* rich.  Me, and Pedro, and Jose and Andy and Karen and Louey...and countless millions of other people who just want need something and so they go to Home Depot and get it.  Home Depot helps me get done want I want done.  They carry the paint I need to paint my office, etc. When I take my family to a restaurant, we go there because we want to sit down and have someone just bring us our food and wait on us hand and foot.  And we pay them to do that.  They are meeting our need.  They are helping us eat.  

It is a symbiotic relationship that businesses have with their customers.  Because millions of us find Home Depot a convenient and affordable way to get what we need...we give them our money.  But how did we get our money?  How do Home Depot employees get their money?  

You basically just went on a long winded rant without a single word or sentence here relating to the overall point you're trying to make. :huh:

You might as well just fill up this space with random words. It means nothing.

36 minutes ago, joc said:

You have totally bought into the Socialist Propaganda of the Left.  It's all out of phase.  

Again. Irony.

My bet is you didn't come to such a radical idea on your own. This is likely some right-wing propaganda being parroted to me from you.

37 minutes ago, joc said:

Why is Sears going out of business and Sam's stores...Walmart is the largest corporation on the planet.  Because they are greedy?  No.  They help people.  If people didn't need help there would be no businesses.  

No, they're greedy. Just because someone buys a product from a company that they like, doesn't mean the company's goal is to 'help people'. The company's goal is to sell their products and make a profit.

Honestly, nearly every single conservative I've ever discussed politics with has argued that greed is good, or how people have a right to earn capital and own a business, etc. Never have I found a conservative who claims businesses are inherently good-willed or that they always have people's best interests at heart. :blink: 

And btw, do I really need to link all the innumerable examples of companies behaving badly just to save a buck? I mean really? Cause if so I'd be here all day. Just Google it yourself man. Have fun with that search for the next 10 years.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
58 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Government jobs are an impediment to the production of wealth because they siphon off income from the real producers.  We see this when the economy booms as government interference is reduced.

Are you thinking that all government workers are pencil pushers in some office?  There is the Coast Guard, Air Traffic Controllers,  Border Patrol, meat inspectors, Forest Rangers, and weather forecasters to name a few.  Make work jobs in the past were not pencil pushers.  They were building dams, constructing buildings, roads, trails, and other public facilities.

Remove all regulations and we become Mexico, or Africa, or  India.  Want to live next door to a garage chrome plating business that your neighbor starts up?  All great until he dumps the heavy metal rich waste on your joint property line.  Bad deal if you have a well.  On this one I speak from experience, it happened to my Montana in-laws.  Want to work in an unsafe factory that collapses and kills hundreds, or send your kids to a school that is not earthquake proof in a Chinese region noted for earthquakes?  Not all regulations are bad.  Removing regulations and speeding up business may be great, but also have unexpected consequences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

but if you can turn 10 million unemployed people into cash earning and consuming citizens, it would seem to be a boon for the economy.

It would be a positive outcome for their dignity but governments cannot gain by paying salaries and taxing them.  These jobs would be government-funded.  We definitely need a new paradigm for employment and compensation, especially if the projections for AI and robotics prove accurate.  When any government representative ignores economic realities and basically calls for unlimited spending, regardless of what term they use to justify it, we are on a path to collapsing the economy.  The thinking of the youth of the Democrat party is moving into the territory of the surreal.  AOC represents a very dangerous future for this country.  There are certainly inequities and outright wrongdoing by some Capitalist ventures but until a better option comes along, we are stuck.  Having a government control the economy and giving it the ability to allow politics to decide winners and losers is a guaranteed path to failure and collapse.  It just never works in a large, diverse society that has a desire for unlimited immigration.  Those who deny this are either ignorant or are in denial.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
26 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Aaaah now I get it, you're a left wing troll that doesn't want to associate themselves with the most murderous ideology of the 20th century...100 million plus. 

Don't want to associate myself with what and whosawhatzit now??? :huh: WTF are you on about man? :lol:

Dude, I don't want to associate myself with a murderous ideology, because my ideology isn't murderous. Did I ever say that Marxism isn't a left-wing ideology? No. Of course Marxism is a left-wing ideology. But that doesn't mean that I'm a Marxist. I'm not. I'm a Social Democrat. I support Social Democracy. That's it. I fully acknowledge those other ideologies as left-wing, but they aren't my ideology, so why the **** would I associate myself with them? That was my overall point dude.

Seriously, I have said repeatedly on here, numerous times in fact, that I fully acknowledge the atrocities committed under left-wing ideologies such as Stalin's regime, Communism, Marxism, etc. because I'm not an immature child who can't admit that there are extremist nutjobs on the far end of my end of the political spectrum. Yet how many times have I seen right wingers on here who refuse to acknowledge that Nazism, the KKK, the alt-right, etc. are right-wing ideologies? Countless times! Conservatives seem to always want to say that any ideology that was ever bad ever is left-wing, and absolutely everything right-wing is good. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered that mentality here, and every single ****ing time I do I always have to remind them that "I acknowledge the violent extremists on the left, so it would only be courteous (and sensible) for you to acknowledge the extremists on the right, rather than falsely label them as 'left' when they clearly aren't." 

Yet you seriously want to come at me with some half-baked bulls**t about how I of all people don't want to acknowledge extremists on the left!? Are you ****ing kidding me!?!?

If anyone here is the troll, it's you. Cause rather than actually present any rational arguments, you seem content to just throw around blatantly obvious lies about other posters here. :rolleyes: It's truly pathetic man.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
8 minutes ago, and then said:

It would be a positive outcome for their dignity but governments cannot gain by paying salaries and taxing them.  These jobs would be government-funded. 

I think citizens and the government can gain if they pay for  a valuable service at a fair price.  Do we want a wall or not?  Is it something we are willing to pay for? Then we might as well pay American citizens to do it instead of drawing unemployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
45 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Absolutely not!...not on my dime!

If jim bob down the street is perfectly capable of getting off his ass and working but decides he's perfectly fine laying around on the couch all day then screw him!

He can do so on a street corner hungry,thirsty,and without power!

It's not the tax payers job to go to work and earn a living so nanny goverment can take a cut to provide food,shelter,and clothing for 28 year old children!

Ahh, American Christianity at it’s finest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
13 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ahh, American Christianity at it’s finest.

Sometimes I'm not sure with you. If not sarcasm I take it you feel obligated to provide for able bodied adults who choose not to provide for themselves?

Edited by F3SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
Just now, F3SS said:

Sometimes I'm not sure with you. If not sarvasm I take it you feel obligated to provide for able bodied adults who choose not to provide for themselves?

I’m glad I can still surprise ;)

We already provide for them, we have the dole and Medicare and bulk billing etc. my way, we provide equally to everyone just enough to survive and no more. The rest is on the individual. Sure there’ll be those who are happy to bludge. But on the other hand, we’ve created a safety net for people to apply themselves safe in the knowledge that if they fail, they’ll not starve. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

"We need to invent technology that's never been invented yet"-2013#aoc 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
17 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ahh, American Christianity at it’s finest.

Tear the site apart,show me where i've EVER said i was a Christian...

You've been docked 10 holier than thou points for the day ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
20 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’m glad I can still surprise ;)

We already provide for them, we have the dole and Medicare and bulk billing etc. my way, we provide equally to everyone just enough to survive and no more. The rest is on the individual. Sure there’ll be those who are happy to bludge. But on the other hand, we’ve created a safety net for people to apply themselves safe in the knowledge that if they fail, they’ll not starve. 

You say "just enough to survive,then no more"...then carry over into "well healthy people will be blessed with free money and chronically ill punished,so maybe government healthcare"...what happened to the "no more" :huh:

Gotta know where uncle sugar gov is gonna get all that healthcare money...Oh right again,the WORKING tax payer! :rolleyes:

Edited by CrimsonKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
25 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’m glad I can still surprise ;)

We already provide for them, we have the dole and Medicare and bulk billing etc. my way, we provide equally to everyone just enough to survive and no more. The rest is on the individual. Sure there’ll be those who are happy to bludge. But on the other hand, we’ve created a safety net for people to apply themselves safe in the knowledge that if they fail, they’ll not starve. 

To fail you first must try. Nobody has an issue with the idea of safety nets but these bozos want to give everybody unconditional quality of life. There must be strings attached.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Once again, the sheer level of irony here simply cannot be understated.

You are literally saying the exact opposite of what is true. You might as well be telling me the sky is down and the ground is up. Everything you're saying here is completely and totally backward.

You basically just went on a long winded rant without a single word or sentence here relating to the overall point you're trying to make. :huh:

You might as well just fill up this space with random words. It means nothing.

Again. Irony.

My bet is you didn't come to such a radical idea on your own. This is likely some right-wing propaganda being parroted to me from you.

No, they're greedy. Just because someone buys a product from a company that they like, doesn't mean the company's goal is to 'help people'. The company's goal is to sell their products and make a profit.

Honestly, nearly every single conservative I've ever discussed politics with has argued that greed is good, or how people have a right to earn capital and own a business, etc. Never have I found a conservative who claims businesses are inherently good-willed or that they always have people's best interests at heart. :blink: 

And btw, do I really need to link all the innumerable examples of companies behaving badly just to save a buck? I mean really? Cause if so I'd be here all day. Just Google it yourself man. Have fun with that search for the next 10 years.

Okay...so you think we should be Socialist.  If Capitalism is bad...then we should just go full board Socialist?  Is that your answer?  If it is...why haven't you left yet for Venezuela?  What? Chavez was greedy?  I thought only Capitalist Conservatives were greedy.  So much for your Utopia...the problem Bud is that we are all Human and some humans are greedy...but most aren't...most just want to make life better for themselves and their kids.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
16 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

You say "just enough to survive,then no more"...then carry over into "well healthy people will be blessed with free money and chronically ill punished,so maybe government healthcare"...what happened to the "no more" :huh:

Gotta know where uncle sugar gov is gonna get all that healthcare money...Oh right again,the WORKING tax payer! :rolleyes:

That’s just it, that’s why the healthcare part of thr plan is hairy. I have no bloody idea how to make that part work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
27 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Tear the site apart,show me where i've EVER said i was a Christian...

You've been docked 10 holier than thou points for the day ;)

Ohh I’m sorry, I mistook you for one of the hypocrites who are more thsn hsppy to make people suffer while they turn their heads and loudly pray in public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 minutes ago, F3SS said:

To fail you first must try. Nobody has an issue with the idea of safety nets but these bozos want to give everybody unconditional quality of life. There must be strings attached.

Exactly. 

You get a safety net for all, but (with some caveats) the removal of all other government support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn

I don't see much of any of this happening, despite what she says or proposes. I think she'll eventually fade out of the spotlight and end up like Bernie Sanders (not really getting anywhere with the whole Dem party), that's if she manages to hang on to any political position for a long time. I think there are some Democrats in the party that secretly detest any kind of far left-wing socialist ideals, but just play along. Those type of Dems just like to hand freebies out every once in while and say anything to get votes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Are you thinking that all government workers are pencil pushers in some office?  There is the Coast Guard, Air Traffic Controllers,  Border Patrol, meat inspectors, Forest Rangers, and weather forecasters to name a few.  Make work jobs in the past were not pencil pushers.  They were building dams, constructing buildings, roads, trails, and other public facilities.

Remove all regulations and we become Mexico, or Africa, or  India.  Want to live next door to a garage chrome plating business that your neighbor starts up?  All great until he dumps the heavy metal rich waste on your joint property line.  Bad deal if you have a well.  On this one I speak from experience, it happened to my Montana in-laws.  Want to work in an unsafe factory that collapses and kills hundreds, or send your kids to a school that is not earthquake proof in a Chinese region noted for earthquakes?  Not all regulations are bad.  Removing regulations and speeding up business may be great, but also have unexpected consequences.

In my mind I was referring only to the jobs currently under discussion.  The ones that would be created solely for the purpose of providing jobs.  My prose did not adequately reflect my thoughts.  But all the jobs you mention do produce something.  They produce safety and consistency.  They grease the wheels of a complex dynamic society.   Regulations are necessary for the same reason, to make sure products are what they claim to be but over regulation becomes a hindrance.  A net below you provides assurance that you won't fall but a net over you keeps you from moving.  I have nothing against pencil pushers, per se, but sometimes the government hires three people to push the same pencil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
4 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ohh I’m sorry, I mistook you for one of the hypocrites who are more thsn hsppy to make people suffer while they turn their heads and loudly pray in public

Nah that's not me lol

I'm just a average everyday kinda fella who earns his own money by going to work...i'm not going to give some of my earned money away freely,while some healthy lazy ******* gets by doing absolutely nothing!

I feel bad for actual homeless people and the actual people suffering who aren't capable of doing anything about it...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Businesses do not exist to help people.  They exist to make a profit. 

Interesting because when I walk into a store...someone usually says something like, How may I help you?  They never say...Wanna buy something?  And I usually reply with, Yes, actually I was looking for the yadayadayada....to which the usual reply is...Follow me I'll show you right where the yadayadayadas are.  And then I say, Thank  you so much...now I can finish my project and get that off my plate and ...I really need to finish that project...thank you!  And they usually reply...your welcome, come back and see us...and then I reply...oh, I will! Thanks again. I really appreciate your HELP.  And they'll say, No problem...see you later.

And when I go to the restaurant...same thing.

And when you go to work...why are you there?  To make money for the man?  No.  You are there to make money for yourself.  But how is that possible?  Because you are designing a machine...a machine that will help someone do something so that their business can make more money!  You are helping them grow their business and they need people like you to help them...which is why the business you are in exists...because people need someone to help them design innovative machines.  

I will admit... I did ere.  I said 'only reason'.  That was incorrect.  Profit is a reason many people go into business.  But the rock solid foundation of any business is based on helping other people....not to make money.  It goes without saying that a business must profit.  The more a business profits, the more it can expand, and the more it can expand, the more profit it can make...and along the way...more people are helped.  

The bottom line is....let's say you are a plumber and my faucet is leaking.  I need your help.  I don't know how to change the faucet out. I don't have the tools, and even if I do know how...I don't want to face that learning curve.  So...I call you.  You fix it...I pay you.  Why are you even there to begin with?  To make a profit?  Hey Bob, I'm going to start my own plumbing business because I want to make a lot of profit.....   No, you are there to help people like me because...if I didn't need your help....i wouldn't be calling  you.  If I didn't need help with eating...I would not be going to a grocery store or a restaurant.  It's all based on helping each other...

....and also...most businesses and most successful Entrepreneurs contribute a lot of money to charity.   Businesses are here to help us.  If we didn't need their help they wouldn't exist...no matter how much profit they desired....and the bottom line of all of that is...if you don't help me...someone else will...I will pay whoever will help me for the best price.  If you aren't interested in helping me...I will find someone who is.  It's a beautiful thing.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
7 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I don't see much of any of this happening, despite what she says or proposes. I think she'll eventually fade out of the spotlight and end up like Bernie Sanders (not really getting anywhere with the whole Dem party), that's if she manages to hang on to any political position for a long time. I think there are some Democrats in the party that secretly detest any kind of far left-wing socialist ideals, but just play along. Those type of Dems just like to hand freebies out every once in while and say anything to get votes.

I think she's between a rock and a hard place...

She's riling up a young voting base and putting ideas in their heads that sound amazing to those of college age without much life experience yet...She'll find it hard to just sit back and take orders from Pelosi and rake in millions and expect those who got her into office to sit back quietly and praise her.

The old school Dems do actually detest her and Nancy putting her on the oversight committee was a way to try and shut her up with a lil bribe...the old schoolers though need her type around to try and keep hold of power.

I've said it before,the Democratic party has a fight brewing for the "soul" of what the Democrat party is...it's not gonna be pretty!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
33 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

I think she's between a rock and a hard place...

She's riling up a young voting base and putting ideas in their heads that sound amazing to those of college age without much life experience yet...She'll find it hard to just sit back and take orders from Pelosi and rake in millions and expect those who got her into office to sit back quietly and praise her.

The old school Dems do actually detest her and Nancy putting her on the oversight committee was a way to try and shut her up with a lil bribe...the old schoolers though need her type around to try and keep hold of power.

I've said it before,the Democratic party has a fight brewing for the "soul" of what the Democrat party is...it's not gonna be pretty!

Oh man, exactly! Totally agree except, I think they're already fighting for the "soul" of what the Dem party is. I think the old school Dems will keep it though. I suspect in their heart of hearts they're capitalists too, just hypocritical in what they say because they don't won't to lose too many of those young liberal votes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
Just now, Gunn said:

Oh man, exactly! Totally agree except, I think they're already fighting for the "soul" of what the Dem party is. I think the old school Dems will keep it though. I suspect in their heart of hearts they're capitalists too, just hypocritical in what they say because they don't won't to lose too many of those young liberal votes.

No doubt,and i believe you will be proven correct...the old school has the money!

They'll take their lumps though and possibly spring up another 3rd party from the jilted far left that won't be appeased by a few more government handouts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
9 hours ago, Nnicolette said:

If you don't want to work don't! But it shouldn't upset you to suggest that people have jobs readily available that they can make a living at rather than getting checks for doing nothing. 

So you have someone that doesn't work and someone who works their butt off and they both get the same wage.  What do you think will happen?  People will stop working.  Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
39 minutes ago, joc said:

Okay...so you think we should be Socialist.  If Capitalism is bad...then we should just go full board Socialist?  Is that your answer?    

No. Not even close. I've only said this a quintillion times here, but for the sake of argument, I will say it again....

I am not against Capitalism. I am against completely unregulated Capitalism. I'm a Social Democrat, which means that I'm in favor of a mixed market economy, with one part Capitalism, and one part Socialism (aka, social programs).

For the best picture of what I'm talking about, think off our current system as we have now - and simply tweak a few things with it. There isn't a single policy that I'm in favor of implementing that doesn't already exist here in the US, just in a much lesser extent.

  • We already have free public school from grades K-12, I want to extend that to at least 4 years public college.
  • We already have Medicare for people ages 65+, I want to expand Medicare to include everyone.
  • We already have a national minimum wage of roughly $7, I want to increase that to $15.

The list could go on...

Get the picture? I'm not looking to completely overrun the American political system. Literally every single thing that I'm rooting for already exists here in the US, I'm just looking to expand upon and/or tweak it a little. That's all. Furthermore, there isn't a single policy proposal that I support that doesn't already exist (at least in some form or another) in some other modern developed country in Europe, or like Canada, or Australia, New Zealand, etc. I'm not pulling ideas from China, or Russia, or for God's sake ****ing Venezuela like you conservatives always yap about for no reason... <_<

You and so many other conservatives here want to completely lose your s**t over these benign policy proposals and think "Oh my God!! He wants the Commies to take over good old 'Merica!! ABSOLUTE GUBBERMINT TAKEOVER OF EVER'THANG!!!!! Doom, gloom, despair!!! Something something dictatorship Venezuela something AAAAHH!!!" when literally nothing could be further from the truth. All I support are a few government-based programs that help give those in poverty the resources they need to work their way up. I unlike conservatives, don't believe that people are inherently capable of climbing the economic ladder and living a happy productive life without said systems in place. There has to be a social safety net at the bottom, so that those at the bottom are able to work their way up. Do you get it?

Alright, now I'm getting really really sick and tired of having to explain the same god damn thing over and over again, and I sure as hell ain't doing it in the same thread. So if you don't get where I stand by now, then my thought is you never will.

1 hour ago, joc said:

If it is...why haven't you left yet for Venezuela?  

*mutters under breath to himself* Oh my ****ing god, Jesus Christ why do I have to explain this s**t again??? *facepalm*

If there's one thing that I'm sick of more than any other thing in the world, it's the whole 'Venezuela' line you cons repeat over and over and over again like a broken record player without a single clue in the world why it's so demonstrably wrong...

For a complete in-depth analysis of the Venezuela argument, and thorough DEBUNKING, click this link.

Though to summarize the link above (since you'll likely ignore it), Venezuela is an Authoritarian Socialist regime. It is not at all representative of the kind of 'Socialism' (namely, Democratic Socialism) I and many others on the left are arguing in favor of. Just because the nation has various Socialist policies, does not mean that there aren't various other political factors that lead to Venezuela's various hardships (for instance the crippling US sanctions hindering economic progress, an authoritarian dictator as political leader, a completely undemocratic elective system, etc.).

Furthermore, if we were to go by your logic that:

  • Venezuela is Socialist, and Venezuela's economy failed, therefore Socialism is a failed economic system 

then we could use that exact same logic to 'debunk' Capitalism by citing Zimbabwe: 

  • Zimbabwe is Capitalist, Zimbabwe's economy failed, therefore Capitalism is a failed economic system

See the problem with your logic here?

Constantly responding to anything the least bit Socialist with "Socialism, but whatabout Venezuela!?!?" not only completely mischaracterizes the kind of Democratic Socialism that we support, but the same exact argument could be used to supposedly 'debunk' Capitalism, so it's a pathetically bad argument all around.

I may not be able to get rid of hearing that stupid argument again and again in the future from other conservatives here, but if I could at least convince you to not use that same worn out line again in the future, it would be greatly appreciated. :hmm:

1 hour ago, joc said:

What? Chavez was greedy?  I thought only Capitalist Conservatives were greedy.  So much for your Utopia...the problem Bud is that we are all Human and some humans are greedy...but most aren't...most just want to make life better for themselves and their kids.  

I agree with you here. Greed is a natural part of human nature, so to expect it to not exist in any system is unrealistic, and a waste of time. That's why I'm not a Marxist, or a Communist. I'm a Democratic Socialist, or more accurately, a Social Democrat. I don't believe we can eliminate human greed, but we can put sytems in place that prevent it from destroying the economy and getting out of hand.

That's why I'm in favor of government regulations that hold corporations accountable, I'm in favor of breaking up monopolies whenever corporations get too big so that they can more adequately compete with one another like a proper Capitalist system should operate, and I'm in favor of higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans as well as corporations in order to fund programs that the most impoverished Americans need in order to succeed and work their way to the top.

I hope I'm at least making my position a little more clear to you. I'll let you know, I wouldn't be explaining all this to you if I didn't believe you to genuinely be unaware of my actual position here. A lot of other posters here just want to mud-sling and demonize the opposition without a care in the world as to whether it's true or not. In other words they call me a Communist etc. knowing full well that's bulls**t, but they say it anyway just to troll and as I said, demonize. I think you're sincere in your ideology and sincerely don't understand the difference between the various kinds and degrees of leftist ideologies, you're just sincerely wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.