Libertarian posted:

You know how you stop a corporation? You stop buying their products. No, really, it's that simple. You stop buying their products and buy someone else's, and they suddenly either stop what they were doing wrong or they starve. With a government, we need elections because there is no alternative. You can't pay taxes to an alternate source without leaving the country and asking for citizenship from another. There can't be competition when, for lack of better verbage, the guys in the monopoly are holding guns to everyone's heads and saying they'll be locked up if they don't purchase the good or service they provide.

The problem comes in when people claim that I have an obligation to feed and clothe someone I don't know. Now granted, Solidarity exists, even though for most it's a four-letter word. But at the same time, what does this have to do with, well, anything? I accept that they're people. But at the same time, it's wrong to steal from someone for the purpose of supporting other people who they've never met and never will.

Now, you bring up countries that have done well with socialism. However, there are countries that have done well without it. In fact, Poland went from being a backwater to have the 20th spot in the world's GDP. In fact, they were the only ones to completely weather the storm in the EU, actually not seeing a decline in their GDP. Their economics are built on the Austrian School- Neoliberalism. In other words, Classical Liberalism. In other words, Libertarianism.

Polybius91 posted:

The problem with "voting with your money" is that it puts a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of the wealthy. A single rich man can exert far more economic pressure than a very large group of impoverished people because he'll have more money than all of them combined. Hence the idea in a democracy of one person, one vote. It's not perfect and it's not free of corruption; lobbyists can pressure politicians and corporations can fund their campaigns, but there's at least one area where the richest executive and the poorest retail clerk wield the same amount of power, and that's in the voting booth.

Even if I were to concede that taxation is theft, I'd still rather be a thief than a killer. Yes, with a robust social welfare system, some people who can afford it lose money. Without it, other people will die. You're effectively trying to tell me that property rights should be considered more sacred than human lives.

About that so-called prosperity of the 1920s: How much prosperity is worth this? Or this? Or this? Or this? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is "none." There's no amount of prosperity that's worth massacres being a routine event. That sort of thing is still happening in countries with less strict business regulations, by the way.

And to be perfectly frank, I don't give a poo poo what Poland's GDP is and how it's changed. Making lots of money does not automatically make someone a good or nice guy.

I'll tell you the questions that do matter to me. How many Polish people go to bed hungry? How many of them are condemned to perpetual poverty because they can't even pay both their power and water bills every month, let alone save up for training that could get them a better job? Do they have enough hours off to meaningfully spend time with their friends and family? How many of them die from treatable diseases and injuries because they can't afford medical care? What's the average life expectancy? Are their mentally ill receiving adequate and humane care? How well is the natural environment they all depend on being preserved?

Those are the questions I ask when I want to know the wellbeing of a nation.

Libertarian posted:

You say that without money, people can't oppose corporations. Well they can. I'm dirt poor. I'm taking 40,000 dollars out (10,000 a year) in loans to support my college education, and that's with working 9 to 5 during the summer. I took the extra five bucks a month to get AT&T service when I found out Verizon cooperated with the NSA. It's going to hurt, but it's possible.

Look at your own loving dates. Only two of those took place within a reasonably close period, and all under Harding. The final one took place in 1897, a little under twenty-five years away from the others. You know what we see now? Unions which are essentially in control of their industries. Teacher's Unions who can strike for higher wages when the kids they're supposed to be teaching can't read.

Your entire point is built on the central thesis that I give a poo poo about Tom, Dick, and Harry who're on welfare and taking five minimum wage part time jobs. I don't give a flying gently caress about them. And the 50% tax on my parents which is forcing me to take inordinate amounts of debt out, despite the fact that they could barely pay for my college without the tax makes me a little loving skeptical of your claims of [welfare] helping people. Solidarity doesn't mean you're responsible for every single person in society. I'm not responsable for the guy living down the street. He is a grown-rear end man. If he starves, it is not my fault. Your universal healthcare can get people killed and cost people who can barely afford it hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Regarding Poland, the percentage of the population below the poverty line in Poland is 10% compared to the US's 15%. The rest isn't the job of the government. You do not have a right to be happy. If you believe you should be able to be happy, fine, but don't call it a right, because a right is a very specific thing.

The less people hold very real guns to my head and tell me what I can and can't do, the better.

Another Libertarian posted:

Why didn't people just not move into company towns?

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Anyone have that long response of using a classroom to explain socialism? This is the video that has animated Reagan explaining to Obama what socialism is. My brother in law posted that and some ann coulter yahoo news article about how horrible Obamacare is.

I need that response to hopefully shut him down (a few days ago he posted the townhall government shut down article and I responded ad he shut up about it).

Walter posted:

50% tax, my rear end. No one in the US pays 50% tax, even at the top marginal rate.

Also, whining that the government is taxing his parents and they can barely pay for his college, and that's why he's mad, is...



Hit de-friend and be done with this gently caress.

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

http://money.msn.com/now/post--how-atandt-beats-the-nsa-at-its-own-game

Jesus just link him that.

Libertarian posted:

I don't relish the idea of paying for some babby-momma or other lowlife's welfare any more than I already have to. Why should I pay for the life mistakes of other people? If I want to help out, I'd rather help out the community around me instead of some way the hell out in Detroit or Baltimore who has not and will not learn a thing from their situation. Call me cold and selfish, but that's my honest opinion here.

The same guy posted:

If you got into six-figure debt by going to college, maybe you shouldn't have gone so soon. Does no one learn basic financial responsibility anymore? If you can't pay for something, don't spend the money.

Oh my loving god posted:

Nobody can ever earn the right to take what's mine, I don't care what any communist, socialist, syndicalist, or even bleeding-heart centrist says. There are places and people that will help you if you need it, without big gubbamint coming in for my taxes.

VitalSigns posted:

Duke Igthorn posted:

They mock this as if they have no idea that it's a soundbite instead of, you know, the entire plan. Then they turn around and talk in soundbites.

quote:

You are making excuses for poor decisions, poor work ethic and refusing to accept that there are consequences to those decisions (whoever the blame should be put on). And yes, I expect people to be able to work that hard. Wanna know why? I was there. I did that. I survived it. In fact, I'm still doing that. It's not impossible, and it is simple. You do what is needed. To say that it isn't shows that you've never been in pain before, you've never had to be in that place where it's either do what is needed, or loose everything. Best part about my work experience, I'm about ready to leave one job. I'm almost able to make enough to live off two jobs. That the essence of the American dream. You work however many jobs it takes to survive, then you focus on getting better jobs so that you don't have to work as many jobs. Three goes to two, then two goes to one.

quote:

As an excuse, the only thing you really need for an education is access to a library or the internet. You can educate yourself on any topic, at any time if you are willing to work hard and are self-motivated. Now, that doesn't work for everyone (I'm one of those people), but it's an option. One that is just as viable as any school.

quote:

I can't find a job so I just created my own. Starting a business is not that hard. Gates and Jobs both dropped out of college, and they are/were easily the top 10 richest men in the world. There is a friend from Wisconsin that started a lawn care business in High School. She is still running it and is making $500 a week.

red19fire posted:

Ask him if he believes in Welfare Queens.

quote:

I'm sorry, where are you living? I live in this place called the "real world" where life isn't fair. It's BS, but it's a fact. Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal results. Equal results means we go the way of the USSR, millions dying of starvation and illness.

quote:

I wish my generation could have higher moral standards. The "Greatest" generation was the last generation where the standard to be a man was high enough that you had to bust your rear end to be one, where my generation makes it feel like it's so high you could trip over it and not even realize what you hit.

quote:

You are a coward, hiding behind the false anonymity of the internet. I guarantee that you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face, or the face of any warrior.

quote:

Your BS little comment really doesn't mean anything to me. After all, people like you are to be pitied. Your cowardly nature means that you just can't achieve anything in life, so you attack those who have the courage to actually put in the hard work in order to make something of themselves.

quote:

Better a soldier, then dead due to your stupidity and ignorance of real threats. Please, explain to me how Al Qaeda is on the run and how the Taliban are not real threats, because I still remember this thing called "9/11" which says that, they still have the power to kill people.

quote:

Funny, I never actually served in combat. I was injured during training and received a medical discharge for that injury.

VitalSigns posted:

Ask him if he'd have punched out famous coward Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine.

quote:

In fact, the poor have more opportunities than the rich, if solely for the fact that they are able (usually) to better differentiate between "needs" and "wants", and that allows them to see opportunities that the rich might just pass over.

quote:

Okay... you know what my precocious little smurf?Time and again we go over this. Socialized medicine has been proven, again time and again, to be inferior. YES, our medicine has problems, I don't deny it. But letting government stick their fat thumb in another pie just leads to one thing: them taking the whole damned bakery.

quote:

Try again. This has already been debunked heavily. Men take more dangerous jobs and ones that take on more travel time. These naturally pay better. This also discounts all of the benefits that are received. Women are required to receive about twice as many benefits as men. When all of that is accounted for, the real pay difference is about 95 cents to the man's dollar.

Most women choose not to pursue full-time careers like men do and take jobs that offer flexible hours and allow them to stay home and take care of any children they have.

Who What Now posted:

Well, and I don't have any links on hand, but if I remember right many women do apply for the jobs he's talking about, but they just don't get them. So it's not a matter of men stepping up to the plate to take these "tough" jobs, it's that women are almost universally barred from them, and heavily discouraged from even considering them in the first place.

quote:

Now, if you actually understand how businesses calculate the pay of an employee, you'll find that flexible hours, working in a fixed location with lots of fellow employees around, safety (both job security and less danger) and shorter hours result in less pay. Those are things that earn the firm a certain amount of money, and they pay a fair (what they consider fair) amount in exchange for that labor. Risky jobs (both job security and danger) come with higher pay because either the job makes the company significantly more money (and therefor that labor is more valuable) or the position needs to be "advertised" and "made more attractive" by increasing the pay. In other words, the old economic principle of risk and reward; high risk means high rewards, and low risk means low rewards. When it comes to earning money, women make bad choices. Generally (and taking it to an extreme to make the points clearer), men are willing to do whatever it takes to earn a paycheck, women will only do so with a lot of conditions.

Guilty Spork posted:

I like (hate) how he seems to want to put all of the blame on women for making "bad" choices themselves, as though that were the sole reason, and there weren't anything preventing them from taking some jobs if they want to. For a long time women did do things like work in dangerous coal mines, and in the 1800s were protesting to keep those jobs because making ends meet was more important to them than being "safe" to starve at home. In WWII when so many men were overseas fighting women took up all kinds of manufacturing jobs and did them well, and then largely got kicked to the curb when the men came back. There's also a pattern of certain jobs that ought to be paid a lot for the really intense and important work they do not getting paid all that well, and those jobs are almost always ones done predominantly by women. In America nurses are an obvious example; while doctors are really important, nurses do a whole lot of the actual hard work of taking care of patients. Of course, in countries where doctors are mostly women, doctors get poo poo pay too.

Also, although some dangerous jobs get paid decent pay because they're forced to to get people to take the jobs, the highest-paying jobs are always the cushiest, least dangerous imaginable. Unless the business owner is unusually nice, businesses pay the very least they can, and have been known to break the law and commit blatant wage theft if they can get away with it. Some are honest enough to base salaries on productivity, but if businesses really did that overall, wages in the U.S. would be substantially higher than they are right now across the board.

quote:

So you want everyone to get paid 10,000+ USD a month in order to drive every single business into the ground, forcing everyone to lose their jobs and completely destroy the US economy, all because there are women, who don't work the same hours for the same job with the same experience and education level, are paid less then men. You see that thing that just exploded? That was your credibility. It's gone.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, you have no evidence to back up your claims (other than several logical fallacies that have completely undermined your own points), you're a blatant misandrist as well as sexist, and have provided ample proof why fanaticism is something to be hated. It's quite sad. You need to get some psychiatric help there.

VideoTapir posted:

Well, if you like, you can now get into a discussion of all the logical fallacies he doesn't understand.

ShortStack posted:

I'm dyin over here.

borkencode posted:

Of course not everyone can live so high on the hog these days.

quote:

All I can do is hope for you to soon get your own dose of 'cultural enrichment."

Dr Christmas posted:

The third image was a straight-up call for genocide

moist turtleneck posted:

Mantis42 posted:

Your mom seems p okay with letting them in tho.

Helen Highwater posted:

I only found one hit on FSTDT

Defenestration posted:

DeusExMachinima posted:

Anyone who says dumb poo poo like this should be strapped down and forced to look through a wormhole, forever, into a timeline where SCOTUS ruled the way Thomas wanted on Raich v. Gonzalez.

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

here you go, and it's the same for dear old dad as well as sheltered white boy randy

Moxie posted:

I don't know but toxic masculinity could use some rebranding. The phrase is pretty off-putting.

Buzkashi posted:

For those who are unclear why Jane Fonda is called a traitor, and for those younger folks who don't know... here's a little history on Jane Fonda. Read it, share it, forward it...inform every young veteran or active duty about this piece of work. She and Hillary are just alike...

Jane Fonda – The Traitor

"Those who believe they can do something - and
those who believe they can't - are both right."

Jane Fonda was talking about her new book. . .
And how good she feels in her 70's. . . She still does not know what she did wrong. . . Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.

Barbara Walters said :
Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her "honored" as a "Woman of the Century."

(I remember this well.)

For those who served and/or died. . .

NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR. SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!

And now President Obama wants to honor her!!!!

In Memory of Lt. C. Thomsen Wieland, who spent 100 days at the Hanoi Hilton [infamous North Vietnam prison] --

IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE. FORWARD THIS SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!

A TRAITOR IS ABOUT TO BE H ONORED .
KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA.

This is for all the kids born in the 70's and after who do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

the heebie-gbs posted:

This is being circulated unironically on facebook:

Cerepol posted:

what is this from?

quote:

It strikes me as rather inaccurate to say they'd be fine as long as they didn't question the government. Stalin's paranoia was infamous, and in many cases mere suspicion of dissent was enough to get you disappeared by the NKVD.

quote:

Yes, Stalin was paranoid. But most people in the Soviet Union lived just fine.

quote:

I do not believe in the concept of human rights. As things stand right now, I do not believe that humans have any rights at all. The reason is because I don't think that a species that refuses to acknowledge the rights of other species is entitled to have any rights of their own.

Do I think that LGBT people should have equal treatment under the law? Yes. I do. But do they have a right to it? No, they do not. But then, neither does anyone else. Not as things stand right now.

Ultimately, it's like the KMFDM song, Dogma. The only reason you're still alive is because someone has decided to let you live. Not because you, or me, or anyone else has any rights.