The IRA and Abortion Clinic bombers would like a word with you.
Can you tell me how many deaths have been due to abortion clinic bombers and the IRA in the past 20 years? I'll give you a hint, your average woodshop teacher can count them on one hand. Fact is that "radical Islam" has caused tens of thousands times more deaths than abortion clinic bombers and the IRA combined over the past 20 years.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Ergo, people only have the unalienable right to make up to $75,000 a year. Any more and it has to come from legislation.
Oh, and it also says "PURSUIT of happiness". The government may not take away your right to PURSUE happiness. Nowhere does the Declaration or the Constitution guarantee happiness, much less 75k/yr.
First, The Declaration of Independence != The Constitution.
Also, if you noticed that in the quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It's up to their Creator to provide these things, not the government. The Creator gives these rights, and they are "unalienable", meaning that the government, or man, may not take them away.
What is the difference between holding a gun to a man's head and saying "work for me or die." and saying "work for me or starve" to someone with no food? In both cases, the person has the same amount of choice: none.
So are you saying that everyone that has a job right now working for "the rich" are not able to get any other job working for anyone else and are unable to go into business for themselves doing something like mowing yards, delivering papers or scooping dog poop if necessary?
And again, as I said in my last post, I don't have a problem with taxes. I don't even have a problem with income redistribution. I have a problem with the federal government doing so because it violates the 10th amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.
You are only bound by law if you are caught. So the rich have gutted enforcement agencies. They don't get caught, for the most part.
Citation needed! Law enforcement in my community is quite well funded, thank you.
Because taking over factories that are competitive in a free market and giving them to workers has been shown not to work with current techniques. Whereas taking factories that are natural monopolies (like electricity, water, and so forth) is almost always a good idea.
Natural monopolies, like utilities, for example are heavily regulated already. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
The unrestricted accumulation of wealth by individuals is also a bad thing, success in life should not allow one to dictate to other people, but in our system, it does.
Success in life does not allow anyone to dictate to other people against their will. Like I said, no one is forced to work for anyone else. Nor is a customer forced to purchase a product or service from a particular company. I buy Coca Cola because I like Coke more that Pepsi and all the generic knock-offs suck. No one at Coke Inc ever forced me to purchase a Coke product. I do so at my own free will. Just as no rich man has ever forced me to take a job working for him.
Accumulation of too much power, be it in government or a corporation, is bad. Society should not allow any individual to accumulate too much power.
Agreed. But like I said, regardless of how much money you make, you are still bound by law, in this country anyway. I agree that you need a government powerful enough to ensure that no one is above the law and all people are equal in the eyes of the law (Kennedy or not!). However, you need a government weak enough to make sure politicians that make up that government are not above the law either. Since no amount of money makes anyone above the law, the purpose of government should be enforcing laws, not limiting income. There is no good, legal reason why a government should take personal property when acquired (read: earned) legally. Government has no business deciding how much is enough, how much is too much and how much is not enough.
Ensuring proper wealth distribution not a power granted to the federal government through the Constitution. Nor is it a denied power, meaning that such a power should be "reserved to the states or to the people, respectively" as stated by the 10th amendment. If a state or local government wants to strip its citizens of legally wealth, they have that power, but good luck with that.
And we tax their businesses here. They can't pick up their factories and take them with. If they want to shut them down, we socialize them and give them to the workers. Let the rich cut off their noses to spite their face.
I'm curious. If you truly believe that taking over the factories and giving them to workers is such a good idea, why do you live here? There are many countries all around the world who have done just that. Cuba, China, Venezuela are just a few that come to mind first. Why are you trying so hard to force your Communist nightmare on the rest of us when all you need to do is move to a place to live out your very own Marxist dream?
Gutting workplace safety laws. Gutting protections for union organizers. Gutting environmental regulations. Gutting financial regulations. Gutting social programs that make workers secure enough to ask for fair treatment. Letting in foreign workers with H1B visas. Lowering the top tax rate. Tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas. The list goes on and on, man, it's all out war and they are winning.
First, you offer no evidence to any of this, but we'll ignore that for now. I want to know how Steve Jobs gutted financial regulations from his garage. I want to know who was endangered by his tinkering with electronics, creating the first Apple. What social programs did Bill Gates gut when he was meeting with IBM to sell them the first versions of DOS? How on earth did Michael Dell "lower the top tax rate" when was in his early twenties, piecing together machines form his dorm room? How many foreign H1B workers did Nia Vardalos use while writing "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"?
And unions? Really!!??? You talk about the theft from the rich and then bring up unions? The same groups that forcibly take money from workers and use it place politicians in office to give favorable laws to unions? The very same unions that want to strip workers of their rights to private ballot when voting on union matters? The very same groups that host "public" town hall meetings for their purchased politicians and beat anyone who disagrees? Hell, they'll even attack other competing unions. Those unions? Are you frakkin' kidding me!??!
Next, have you ever taken the time to consider that these people might make a product or provide a service that people want?
Finally, and back to your "examples", what has any of that taken from you? And again, you have never defined what is "rich". Wouldn't you say Al Gore is rich? Did he do all these things? Are you saying that Al Gore "gutted environmental regulations"?
I work in an enviro friendly building with ergonomic everything making a product that allows people do things from home rather than getting in their cars and driving to our customer's place of business. My boss is loaded. He hasn't done any of the things you accuse all rich people of doing.
And here's an idea. If you feel your boss is guilty of any of the crimes you claim, quit! Bring a box, put all your crap in there and walk your ass out the door and find a job working for a poor person. No one forces you to work at any of these places. Most people do because they want to.
It is not stealing to take back stolen property. The rich have bought themselves laws that transferred wealth to them, well, we can vote ourselves laws that transfer it back to us.
OK, what laws has Michael Dell purchased to get himself rich? Remember, he started out making computers out of his UT dorm room. Steve Jobs started out in his garage. How did Jobs and Wozniak afford to buy off the US Senate? How did the rich guys buy laws BEFORE the wealth was transferred to them? I think you need to rework you logic. As it stands, it's flawed.
"Commonwealth" taxes should be done locally. Libertarians have no problems with local control because if a community over taxes or doesn't provide necessary services, they can simply move to one that better meets their needs. That's hard to do when the taxation comes from the big feds. The only thing the Feds should be doing is what is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment. Taking from one group to give a more favored group is theft.
Besides, the GP wasn't talking about taxing for the community good. He was talking about taking the assets of the rich because they stole it.
I am sorry that the Libertarians made the discourse so vehement rather than rational, but it was their school who promoted this emotional meme to the point that rational discourse became impossible.
Libertarians are not emotional at all. We want the federal government to follow the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. What could be more rational than, "read the Constitution!"
This class warfare that the left spouts is irrational. Envy is an emotion.
Remember, taking back what was stolen from you is not stealing.
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
Of course, we could take seize all their assets and redistribute them to whoever they stole it from. Just curious though, who would get Michael Dell's assets? Seems to me that the money Dell has made came from people who willingly purchased products and services that Dell provides. Stealing is taking stuff away from people against their will. Who did Dell steal from? Other than the obvious thieves, Enron execs, Bernie Madhoff, etc, who have the founders of the companies that make stuff we all use, like iPods, software, dishwashers stolen from? How do we get the money back to the victims if we don't know who they are?
GDP Per capita: Dominican Republic: $5,122 The Bahamas: $22,156 Puerto Rico: $17,691 Jamaica: $5,335 Haiti: $791 here and here
Cuban GDP per capita: $9,700 Actually, better than Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, which surprised me, but nowhere near Puerto Rico and The Bahamas.
Did you purposefully ignore the "First Nations" part of my comment about Canada because it made it easier to ridicule me, or because it's convenient to ignore the state of the poor in the US or Canada when arguing against socialism.
I think I covered that when I said:
Sure, there may be some homeless guy freezing to death in Nova Scotia that would be better served starving on a warm beach near Havana, but comparing the absolute economic bottom of one society to the middle class of another isn't really fair. After all, the president of Haiti lives better than the homeless transvestite in Los Angeles, but I wouldn't exactly say that the standard of living in Haiti is better than that of the US.
Did you ignore my "Cuban's are starving part"? I can't really find any particular number that will measure "standard of living", but being able to eat should figure pretty high in that formula. Sure, every country is going to have someone starving for whatever reason, but the problem is not universal to every citizen as it was in Cuba.
Actually, all of those countries do validate his point. As would Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama or Guatemala. Every single one of them has a lower standard of living than Cuba. Every. Single. One.
Hell, so do First Nations people in much of Canada. Or any number of American urban ghettoes.
Cuba isn't perfect by a long shot, but by Central American standards it's a fucking paradise for it's average citizenry.
Need I go on? Now, I've only been to Canada a handful of times, about the same as I've been to Mexico, but I've never seen outright starvation in either country. In both countries, I was able to get my hands on beef, quite easily (I ordered the steak), as it was for the rest of the population in the areas I was in. Hell, for that matter, I've seen more homeless in Austin Tx and Lansing Mi than in Toronto, Tijuana or Matamoros.
Yes, Mexico has some poverty, but like I said, no one was arrested by the government for eating beef without permission.
I think you are looking at Cuban government docs or Michael Moore movies and taking them at face value. Maybe you are just not considering factors such as "has food to eat" as a viable indicator of quality of standard of living. Maybe your data is from a time before the fall of the Soviet empire.
Either way, I can't find a whole lot of data to back up your claim that the standard of living in Cuba is better than the standard of living in Canada. Sure, there may be some homeless guy freezing to death in Nova Scotia that would be better served starving on a warm beach near Havana, but comparing the absolute economic bottom of one society to the middle class of another isn't really fair. After all, the president of Haiti lives better than the homeless transvestite in Los Angeles, but I wouldn't exactly say that the standard of living in Haiti is better than that of the US.
You did not attack the substance of the argument in the original post and called people names.
I said this before, and if you can read, please work you back up and find it again. For that matter, it kinda proves that my argument is not a strawman. See, your very definition of strawman starts with "misrepresenting the opponent's argument." I didn't do that because, and pay attention to this part, I WAS NOT RESPONDING TO REFUTE HIS ARGUMENT. I WAS RESPONDING TO USE HIS POST AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. Now, if I were to say, "the original poster is a hate monger, so his argument is invalid", then you might have a point. NO, NO NO NO NO. That is not what I'm saying. One more time: His post was an example of a personal attack.
So, dude, stop with the bullshit. I made a point, gave examples and did my best to explain something in a way simple enough for underachieving second grader to understand, but evidently, you like to pretend that you don't have the mental capacity to grasp it. I provided example after example after example of personal attacks and insults coming from the left, and the only example you provide is me calling them out on it. Evidently, in your mind, me saying "these arguments are hate based" is more hateful than calling someone a Nazi or saying that their followers are retarded.
The sad part is that no matter what the left says it doesn't matter, but as soon as I say anything at all about it, I'm suddenly the asshole. Your course of logic is no different than telling a cop that he deserves a ticket because he had to speed to catch you.
Seriously, here is the golden comment of all:
Call people hatemongers all you like, others can see your statements for what they are.
I'm a hate monger because I called the people that called other people retarded and evil "hate mongers". Really dude, read that again. If you don't get it, go find someone and ask them the following question: "Say, if someone says something really mean to someone else, and I call them a big fat meanie, am I the meanie or are they?" I even simplified it for you.
Sorry, I've been as civil as possible up to this point. I've done my best not to hurl insults, and I'm not going to start now. That said, what I'm going to say is not an insult, but what I honestly believe to be fact, and I offer this thread as proof.
You know, it's of course impossible that US government might want to paint a worse picture of their enemies than what they actually are! It's not even only Cuba.. It's China, Russia, North Korea, whatever country with different views, culture and society.
Seriously? I'll tell you what. As soon as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any other country that the US wants to make look evil allows relatively unfettered access to a country and its population, I'll read the report and consider it to be the truth. Until then, I only have the stories from those starving individuals who risk their lives to escape such regimes.
I'm sorry, how is bringing up that none of these countries have a free press "Troll"? Without a free press, the government is free to be as oppressive as they like. You may not have a free society without a free press.
So, will the mod that thinks free press is "troll" please speak up.
Yup. People will be as free, wealthy and happy in Cuba as they now are in Haiti. Good times.
Haiti's problems are due to political corruption, much like Cuba's. But why bring up Haiti? Why not bring up the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, or Jamaica? Oh, that's right, none of those countries validate the point you are trying to make. As a matter of fact, any one of them will completely disprove your argument. Yeah, it's probably best to ignore them completely.
Says the guy who is claiming his political system is the same as Cuba's while he freely criticizes it online without fear of retribution.
Stop bitching. It really only make you look like some kind of emo kid who complains about the misery in his life while he lives in an air conditioned home, has his own room and goes to bed with a full stomach every night. Unless you truly live under a repressive regime, STFU. In reading you post, I'm guess you don't.
You know, it's of course impossible that US government might want to paint a worse picture of their enemies than what they actually are! It's not even only Cuba.. It's China, Russia, North Korea, whatever country with different views, culture and society.
Seriously? I'll tell you what. As soon as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any other country that the US wants to make look evil allows relatively unfettered access to a country and its population, I'll read the report and consider it to be the truth. Until then, I only have the stories from those starving individuals who risk their lives to escape such regimes.
You started by calling people on one side of a political divide hatemongers and accusing them of projecting their hate onto the other side. You proceeded to keep on pojecting your own hate by claiming the exact thing that you kept doing is bad.
UM. No. That's my whole argument. Claiming someone is a hate monger doesn't make you a hate monger. What makes you a hate monger is saying things like
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards.
That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful? No. Sorry, not gonna fly. If that's the case, you just called my comments hateful, so that would make you hateful and prove my point. That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger. Well, Mr. Hate Monger, you just called me that.
Try again.
See, it's actually kinda funny. Back when the President sided with the black professor over the Cambridge PD after admitting that all he knew about the case was that the professor what black and the policeman was white. Since all he knew about the case was the race of the players involved, the only factor he could have made in his decision is race. Glenn Beck call the president a racist for this. The the shitstorm hit. All kinds of liberals came out of everywhere calling Beck a racist because he dared to call the president a racist. Really? So, if calling someone a racist makes one racist, didn't they just all call Glenn Beck racist. Shouldn't they all be racists for calling someone racist? (Likewise, didn't you call me a hatemonger for calling other hate mongers)
you are then only attacking the people in the exact manner that you accuse them of doing.
Um, no. I just showed where someone called Beck followers crazies, retards and evil with no proof to back it up. I said that people use hateful comments and personal attacks rather than attacking the substance of Beck's arguments and used the "crazy/retard/evil" comment as evidence. So when you say "exact manner" do you mean "by posting on slashdot"? I ask because that's the only thing in common.
You're the one spouting all sorts of hateful crap.
Where? Quote it or you are a liar!
You called him out on a hateful argument and didn't try and refute any actual point that he was making, no comparison of truthful vs untruthful statements by either Colbert or Bill/Glen, you just started calling him names and blaming the whole party for hate speach.
Right. I don't give a rat's ass about his "argument". I just used his post as an example of the hate coming from the left. Read my other post for more examples. I couldn't very well respond to all of them. That would be redundant. If that's not enough for you, google "hate sarah palin" or better yet, google "Bristol Palin is a whore" and see what comes up.
You admit that you aren't even trying to refute his argument itself but go after the person with attacks claiming that they are the hatemongers. DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR STATEMENT?
Did you? Read my last paragraph where I explain it again.
You say: "My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument." Do you even get it that YOU were doing that.
Again, show me the quote. Show me where I have hurled an insult toward anyone at all. If you can't back it up, you are a liar. Show me the insult or STFU.
You're statements are documentedly filled with admissions of hate for other perspectives and you still can't admit that you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.
Show it, or dare I say.... YOU ARE PROJECTING!!! You are accusing me of something your side is doing and offering no evidence. Show me the insult I've hurled at someone else. I've shown the insults coming from the left. Show me where I've thrown an insult.
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.
Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.
I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.
Here's the wiki: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position....
Tell you what, sparky. Why don't you go back to the OP's post and tell me: 1) how I misrepresented it 2) how I tried to refute it
I'll even help you out. Here is the OP:
And your point is... what exactly?
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
His argument is that Colbert is funnier and more truthful than O'Reilly or Beck, right? Where did I misrepresent that and attempt to refute the misrepresentation? I mean, aren't those the necessary requirements for a strawman attack?
No, my point was not to refute his argument. My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument. You try to portray them as racists or idiots in an attempt to strip them, and therefor their argument, of any credibility.
Which takes me to my next point, projection. See, that's where you blame others of the crime you are guilty of. Like when you misrepresent someone's argument, claim it's a strawman and then try to shoot it down based on your assumption that your opponent's argument is a strawman. See, that's projection because you are making a strawman argument all while accusing your opponent of doing so.
Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.
The OP was an example. Here are some more, all from this thread:
Dude has a history of drug abuse, hell he might be using again. That sort of thing worked for Hitler, meglomania, an echo chamber of your are right and dope.
I think Beck doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he/does/ believe (not without justification) that his viewers are morons who will believe whatever he tells them, as long as he includes the magic incantation to tell them to do their own research.
It's Nazis all the way down.
Just like Joseph Smith, and countless other charlatans, con-men, and demagogues through the ages.
Yes. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder are often able to suck in large numbers of people to their "cause", for a while.
I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut....than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Teabaggers are unable to detect or comprehend subtlety and nuance.
Strange. I don't see a single argument in the entire thread that extols the virtues of a powerful, federal government. Nowhere do I see anyone even attempt to refute Beck's current rally call of "smaller government".
Nope, it's all about how big of an idiot Beck and his followers are. Other sites stick to how Beck and anyone who opposes President Obama is a
What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.
Yeah and we went into Iraq to save the people from tyranny. If what you say is true, then you got a lot of splaining to do about South Korea where WE WON and they had similar human rights problems until well into the 80s too.
South Korea? BTW, how are they doing compared to the North?
No, Colbert is about poking fun at CONSERVATIVE politics. That's why it gets old while South Park and even The Daily Show remain fresh. They spread it around.
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred?
Festering mouth is right, and its not hatred. Any Projection is on your part. If I see someone walking around with a festering wound for a mouth I don't hate them, but I sure am concerned that something dangerously ungood is happening.
No, of course you don't hate them. You just call their mouth a "festering wound" and claim that their actions can only lead to "something dangerously ungood", but no hatred at all there.
Of course, these people are only guilty of have a point of view that is different than your own and as we all know, anyone that does not agree with you has a "festering wound" for a mouth.
Yeah. No personal attacks there. Only pure fact and logic. When someone disagrees with you, they are obviously scum of the earth with no hope of completing anything worth while. Seriously, how could I possibly refute the "festering mouth" argument? It's a plain to see as the Chewbacca defense and equally unrefutable.
Slashdot Mirror
The IRA and Abortion Clinic bombers would like a word with you.
Can you tell me how many deaths have been due to abortion clinic bombers and the IRA in the past 20 years? I'll give you a hint, your average woodshop teacher can count them on one hand. Fact is that "radical Islam" has caused tens of thousands times more deaths than abortion clinic bombers and the IRA combined over the past 20 years.
I don't think your comparison is valid.
According to the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Ergo, people only have the unalienable right to make up to $75,000 a year. Any more and it has to come from legislation.
Oh, and it also says "PURSUIT of happiness". The government may not take away your right to PURSUE happiness. Nowhere does the Declaration or the Constitution guarantee happiness, much less 75k/yr.
First, The Declaration of Independence != The Constitution.
Also, if you noticed that in the quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It's up to their Creator to provide these things, not the government. The Creator gives these rights, and they are "unalienable", meaning that the government, or man, may not take them away.
What is the difference between holding a gun to a man's head and saying "work for me or die." and saying "work for me or starve" to someone with no food? In both cases, the person has the same amount of choice: none.
So are you saying that everyone that has a job right now working for "the rich" are not able to get any other job working for anyone else and are unable to go into business for themselves doing something like mowing yards, delivering papers or scooping dog poop if necessary?
And again, as I said in my last post, I don't have a problem with taxes. I don't even have a problem with income redistribution. I have a problem with the federal government doing so because it violates the 10th amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.
You are only bound by law if you are caught. So the rich have gutted enforcement agencies. They don't get caught, for the most part.
Citation needed! Law enforcement in my community is quite well funded, thank you.
Because taking over factories that are competitive in a free market and giving them to workers has been shown not to work with current techniques. Whereas taking factories that are natural monopolies (like electricity, water, and so forth) is almost always a good idea.
Natural monopolies, like utilities, for example are heavily regulated already. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
The unrestricted accumulation of wealth by individuals is also a bad thing, success in life should not allow one to dictate to other people, but in our system, it does.
Success in life does not allow anyone to dictate to other people against their will. Like I said, no one is forced to work for anyone else. Nor is a customer forced to purchase a product or service from a particular company. I buy Coca Cola because I like Coke more that Pepsi and all the generic knock-offs suck. No one at Coke Inc ever forced me to purchase a Coke product. I do so at my own free will. Just as no rich man has ever forced me to take a job working for him.
Accumulation of too much power, be it in government or a corporation, is bad. Society should not allow any individual to accumulate too much power.
Agreed. But like I said, regardless of how much money you make, you are still bound by law, in this country anyway. I agree that you need a government powerful enough to ensure that no one is above the law and all people are equal in the eyes of the law (Kennedy or not!). However, you need a government weak enough to make sure politicians that make up that government are not above the law either. Since no amount of money makes anyone above the law, the purpose of government should be enforcing laws, not limiting income. There is no good, legal reason why a government should take personal property when acquired (read: earned) legally. Government has no business deciding how much is enough, how much is too much and how much is not enough.
Ensuring proper wealth distribution not a power granted to the federal government through the Constitution. Nor is it a denied power, meaning that such a power should be "reserved to the states or to the people, respectively" as stated by the 10th amendment. If a state or local government wants to strip its citizens of legally wealth, they have that power, but good luck with that.
And we tax their businesses here. They can't pick up their factories and take them with. If they want to shut them down, we socialize them and give them to the workers. Let the rich cut off their noses to spite their face.
I'm curious. If you truly believe that taking over the factories and giving them to workers is such a good idea, why do you live here? There are many countries all around the world who have done just that. Cuba, China, Venezuela are just a few that come to mind first. Why are you trying so hard to force your Communist nightmare on the rest of us when all you need to do is move to a place to live out your very own Marxist dream?
Gutting workplace safety laws. Gutting protections for union organizers. Gutting environmental regulations. Gutting financial regulations. Gutting social programs that make workers secure enough to ask for fair treatment. Letting in foreign workers with H1B visas. Lowering the top tax rate. Tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas. The list goes on and on, man, it's all out war and they are winning.
First, you offer no evidence to any of this, but we'll ignore that for now. I want to know how Steve Jobs gutted financial regulations from his garage. I want to know who was endangered by his tinkering with electronics, creating the first Apple. What social programs did Bill Gates gut when he was meeting with IBM to sell them the first versions of DOS? How on earth did Michael Dell "lower the top tax rate" when was in his early twenties, piecing together machines form his dorm room? How many foreign H1B workers did Nia Vardalos use while writing "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"?
And unions? Really!!??? You talk about the theft from the rich and then bring up unions? The same groups that forcibly take money from workers and use it place politicians in office to give favorable laws to unions? The very same unions that want to strip workers of their rights to private ballot when voting on union matters? The very same groups that host "public" town hall meetings for their purchased politicians and beat anyone who disagrees? Hell, they'll even attack other competing unions. Those unions? Are you frakkin' kidding me!??!
Next, have you ever taken the time to consider that these people might make a product or provide a service that people want?
Finally, and back to your "examples", what has any of that taken from you? And again, you have never defined what is "rich". Wouldn't you say Al Gore is rich? Did he do all these things? Are you saying that Al Gore "gutted environmental regulations"?
I work in an enviro friendly building with ergonomic everything making a product that allows people do things from home rather than getting in their cars and driving to our customer's place of business. My boss is loaded. He hasn't done any of the things you accuse all rich people of doing.
And here's an idea. If you feel your boss is guilty of any of the crimes you claim, quit! Bring a box, put all your crap in there and walk your ass out the door and find a job working for a poor person. No one forces you to work at any of these places. Most people do because they want to.
It is not stealing to take back stolen property. The rich have bought themselves laws that transferred wealth to them, well, we can vote ourselves laws that transfer it back to us.
OK, what laws has Michael Dell purchased to get himself rich? Remember, he started out making computers out of his UT dorm room. Steve Jobs started out in his garage. How did Jobs and Wozniak afford to buy off the US Senate? How did the rich guys buy laws BEFORE the wealth was transferred to them? I think you need to rework you logic. As it stands, it's flawed.
"Commonwealth" taxes should be done locally. Libertarians have no problems with local control because if a community over taxes or doesn't provide necessary services, they can simply move to one that better meets their needs. That's hard to do when the taxation comes from the big feds. The only thing the Feds should be doing is what is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment. Taking from one group to give a more favored group is theft.
Besides, the GP wasn't talking about taxing for the community good. He was talking about taking the assets of the rich because they stole it.
I am sorry that the Libertarians made the discourse so vehement rather than rational, but it was their school who promoted this emotional meme to the point that rational discourse became impossible.
Libertarians are not emotional at all. We want the federal government to follow the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. What could be more rational than, "read the Constitution!"
This class warfare that the left spouts is irrational. Envy is an emotion.
Remember, taking back what was stolen from you is not stealing.
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
Of course, we could take seize all their assets and redistribute them to whoever they stole it from. Just curious though, who would get Michael Dell's assets? Seems to me that the money Dell has made came from people who willingly purchased products and services that Dell provides. Stealing is taking stuff away from people against their will. Who did Dell steal from? Other than the obvious thieves, Enron execs, Bernie Madhoff, etc, who have the founders of the companies that make stuff we all use, like iPods, software, dishwashers stolen from? How do we get the money back to the victims if we don't know who they are?
GDP Per capita:
Dominican Republic: $5,122
The Bahamas: $22,156
Puerto Rico: $17,691
Jamaica: $5,335
Haiti: $791
here and here
Cuban GDP per capita: $9,700
Actually, better than Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, which surprised me, but nowhere near Puerto Rico and The Bahamas.
Did you purposefully ignore the "First Nations" part of my comment about Canada because it made it easier to ridicule me, or because it's convenient to ignore the state of the poor in the US or Canada when arguing against socialism.
I think I covered that when I said:
Sure, there may be some homeless guy freezing to death in Nova Scotia that would be better served starving on a warm beach near Havana, but comparing the absolute economic bottom of one society to the middle class of another isn't really fair. After all, the president of Haiti lives better than the homeless transvestite in Los Angeles, but I wouldn't exactly say that the standard of living in Haiti is better than that of the US.
Did you ignore my "Cuban's are starving part"? I can't really find any particular number that will measure "standard of living", but being able to eat should figure pretty high in that formula. Sure, every country is going to have someone starving for whatever reason, but the problem is not universal to every citizen as it was in Cuba.
Actually, all of those countries do validate his point. As would Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama or Guatemala. Every single one of them has a lower standard of living than Cuba. Every. Single. One.
Hell, so do First Nations people in much of Canada. Or any number of American urban ghettoes.
Cuba isn't perfect by a long shot, but by Central American standards it's a fucking paradise for it's average citizenry.
Really? You are saying standard of living in Cuba is better than Canada? Seriously? Let's look at some facts about Cuba:
Average monthly salary: $18
"After 40 years, the economic Standard of Living in Cuba is less than 1% of what it was in the decade of the 50's."
"Before 1959, Cuba boasted as many cattle as people. Today meat is so scarce that it is a crime to kill and eat a cow without government permission.[33] Cuban people even suffered from starvation during the Special Period."
(from same Wiki article):"The famine in Cuba during the Special Period [1989-1993] was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s. Both countries were run by authoritarian regimes that denied ordinary people the food to which they were entitled when the public food distribution collapsed; priority was given to the elite classes and the military."
Need I go on? Now, I've only been to Canada a handful of times, about the same as I've been to Mexico, but I've never seen outright starvation in either country. In both countries, I was able to get my hands on beef, quite easily (I ordered the steak), as it was for the rest of the population in the areas I was in. Hell, for that matter, I've seen more homeless in Austin Tx and Lansing Mi than in Toronto, Tijuana or Matamoros.
Yes, Mexico has some poverty, but like I said, no one was arrested by the government for eating beef without permission.
I think you are looking at Cuban government docs or Michael Moore movies and taking them at face value. Maybe you are just not considering factors such as "has food to eat" as a viable indicator of quality of standard of living. Maybe your data is from a time before the fall of the Soviet empire.
Either way, I can't find a whole lot of data to back up your claim that the standard of living in Cuba is better than the standard of living in Canada. Sure, there may be some homeless guy freezing to death in Nova Scotia that would be better served starving on a warm beach near Havana, but comparing the absolute economic bottom of one society to the middle class of another isn't really fair. After all, the president of Haiti lives better than the homeless transvestite in Los Angeles, but I wouldn't exactly say that the standard of living in Haiti is better than that of the US.
You did not attack the substance of the argument in the original post and called people names.
I said this before, and if you can read, please work you back up and find it again. For that matter, it kinda proves that my argument is not a strawman. See, your very definition of strawman starts with "misrepresenting the opponent's argument." I didn't do that because, and pay attention to this part, I WAS NOT RESPONDING TO REFUTE HIS ARGUMENT. I WAS RESPONDING TO USE HIS POST AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. Now, if I were to say, "the original poster is a hate monger, so his argument is invalid", then you might have a point. NO, NO NO NO NO. That is not what I'm saying. One more time: His post was an example of a personal attack.
So, dude, stop with the bullshit. I made a point, gave examples and did my best to explain something in a way simple enough for underachieving second grader to understand, but evidently, you like to pretend that you don't have the mental capacity to grasp it. I provided example after example after example of personal attacks and insults coming from the left, and the only example you provide is me calling them out on it. Evidently, in your mind, me saying "these arguments are hate based" is more hateful than calling someone a Nazi or saying that their followers are retarded.
The sad part is that no matter what the left says it doesn't matter, but as soon as I say anything at all about it, I'm suddenly the asshole. Your course of logic is no different than telling a cop that he deserves a ticket because he had to speed to catch you.
Seriously, here is the golden comment of all:
Call people hatemongers all you like, others can see your statements for what they are.
I'm a hate monger because I called the people that called other people retarded and evil "hate mongers". Really dude, read that again. If you don't get it, go find someone and ask them the following question:
"Say, if someone says something really mean to someone else, and I call them a big fat meanie, am I the meanie or are they?"
I even simplified it for you.
Sorry, I've been as civil as possible up to this point. I've done my best not to hurl insults, and I'm not going to start now. That said, what I'm going to say is not an insult, but what I honestly believe to be fact, and I offer this thread as proof.
Dude, you are a fucking idiot.
You know, it's of course impossible that US government might want to paint a worse picture of their enemies than what they actually are! It's not even only Cuba.. It's China, Russia, North Korea, whatever country with different views, culture and society.
Seriously? I'll tell you what. As soon as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any other country that the US wants to make look evil allows relatively unfettered access to a country and its population, I'll read the report and consider it to be the truth. Until then, I only have the stories from those starving individuals who risk their lives to escape such regimes.
I'm sorry, how is bringing up that none of these countries have a free press "Troll"? Without a free press, the government is free to be as oppressive as they like. You may not have a free society without a free press.
So, will the mod that thinks free press is "troll" please speak up.
Thank you.
Yup. People will be as free, wealthy and happy in Cuba as they now are in Haiti. Good times.
Haiti's problems are due to political corruption, much like Cuba's. But why bring up Haiti? Why not bring up the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, or Jamaica? Oh, that's right, none of those countries validate the point you are trying to make. As a matter of fact, any one of them will completely disprove your argument. Yeah, it's probably best to ignore them completely.
That goes for every political system.
Says the guy who is claiming his political system is the same as Cuba's while he freely criticizes it online without fear of retribution.
Stop bitching. It really only make you look like some kind of emo kid who complains about the misery in his life while he lives in an air conditioned home, has his own room and goes to bed with a full stomach every night. Unless you truly live under a repressive regime, STFU. In reading you post, I'm guess you don't.
You know, it's of course impossible that US government might want to paint a worse picture of their enemies than what they actually are! It's not even only Cuba.. It's China, Russia, North Korea, whatever country with different views, culture and society.
Seriously? I'll tell you what. As soon as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any other country that the US wants to make look evil allows relatively unfettered access to a country and its population, I'll read the report and consider it to be the truth. Until then, I only have the stories from those starving individuals who risk their lives to escape such regimes.
You started by calling people on one side of a political divide hatemongers and accusing them of projecting their hate onto the other side. You proceeded to keep on pojecting your own hate by claiming the exact thing that you kept doing is bad.
UM. No. That's my whole argument. Claiming someone is a hate monger doesn't make you a hate monger. What makes you a hate monger is saying things like
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards.
That's a real comment from this very slashdot article. So you're saying that if I call that quote hateful, I'm being hateful? No. Sorry, not gonna fly. If that's the case, you just called my comments hateful, so that would make you hateful and prove my point. That's the rule you made right? Calling someone a hate monger makes you a hate monger. Well, Mr. Hate Monger, you just called me that.
Try again.
See, it's actually kinda funny. Back when the President sided with the black professor over the Cambridge PD after admitting that all he knew about the case was that the professor what black and the policeman was white. Since all he knew about the case was the race of the players involved, the only factor he could have made in his decision is race. Glenn Beck call the president a racist for this. The the shitstorm hit. All kinds of liberals came out of everywhere calling Beck a racist because he dared to call the president a racist.
Really? So, if calling someone a racist makes one racist, didn't they just all call Glenn Beck racist. Shouldn't they all be racists for calling someone racist? (Likewise, didn't you call me a hatemonger for calling other hate mongers)
you are then only attacking the people in the exact manner that you accuse them of doing.
Um, no. I just showed where someone called Beck followers crazies, retards and evil with no proof to back it up. I said that people use hateful comments and personal attacks rather than attacking the substance of Beck's arguments and used the "crazy/retard/evil" comment as evidence. So when you say "exact manner" do you mean "by posting on slashdot"? I ask because that's the only thing in common.
You're the one spouting all sorts of hateful crap.
Where? Quote it or you are a liar!
You called him out on a hateful argument and didn't try and refute any actual point that he was making, no comparison of truthful vs untruthful statements by either Colbert or Bill/Glen, you just started calling him names and blaming the whole party for hate speach.
Right. I don't give a rat's ass about his "argument". I just used his post as an example of the hate coming from the left. Read my other post for more examples. I couldn't very well respond to all of them. That would be redundant. If that's not enough for you, google "hate sarah palin" or better yet, google "Bristol Palin is a whore" and see what comes up.
You admit that you aren't even trying to refute his argument itself but go after the person with attacks claiming that they are the hatemongers. DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR STATEMENT?
Did you? Read my last paragraph where I explain it again.
You say: "My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument." Do you even get it that YOU were doing that.
Again, show me the quote. Show me where I have hurled an insult toward anyone at all. If you can't back it up, you are a liar. Show me the insult or STFU.
You're statements are documentedly filled with admissions of hate for other perspectives and you still can't admit that you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.
Show it, or dare I say.... YOU ARE PROJECTING!!! You are accusing me of something your side is doing and offering no evidence. Show me the insult I've hurled at someone else. I've shown the insults coming from the left. Show me where I've thrown an insult.
Holy crap! Don't know how I missed this one:
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.
Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.
Wow!!!! and we're the party of hate!
I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.
Here's the wiki: ...
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Tell you what, sparky. Why don't you go back to the OP's post and tell me:
1) how I misrepresented it
2) how I tried to refute it
I'll even help you out. Here is the OP:
And your point is... what exactly?
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
His argument is that Colbert is funnier and more truthful than O'Reilly or Beck, right? Where did I misrepresent that and attempt to refute the misrepresentation? I mean, aren't those the necessary requirements for a strawman attack?
No, my point was not to refute his argument. My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument. You try to portray them as racists or idiots in an attempt to strip them, and therefor their argument, of any credibility.
Which takes me to my next point, projection. See, that's where you blame others of the crime you are guilty of. Like when you misrepresent someone's argument, claim it's a strawman and then try to shoot it down based on your assumption that your opponent's argument is a strawman. See, that's projection because you are making a strawman argument all while accusing your opponent of doing so.
Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.
The OP was an example. Here are some more, all from this thread:
Dude has a history of drug abuse, hell he might be using again. That sort of thing worked for Hitler, meglomania, an echo chamber of your are right and dope.
I think Beck doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he /does/ believe (not without justification) that his viewers are morons who will believe whatever he tells them, as long as he includes the magic incantation to tell them to do their own research.
It's Nazis all the way down.
Just like Joseph Smith, and countless other charlatans, con-men, and demagogues through the ages.
Yes. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder are often able to suck in large numbers of people to their "cause", for a while.
I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. ...than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Teabaggers are unable to detect or comprehend subtlety and nuance.
Strange. I don't see a single argument in the entire thread that extols the virtues of a powerful, federal government. Nowhere do I see anyone even attempt to refute Beck's current rally call of "smaller government".
Nope, it's all about how big of an idiot Beck and his followers are. Other sites stick to how Beck and anyone who opposes President Obama is a
For example, on the day that Ken Mehlman (sp?) coming out was all over the news on every other channel, it wasn't covered at all on Fox.
Really?
What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent.
Yeah and we went into Iraq to save the people from tyranny. If what you say is true, then you got a lot of splaining to do about South Korea where WE WON and they had similar human rights problems until well into the 80s too.
South Korea? BTW, how are they doing compared to the North?
Thought so.
No, Colbert is about poking fun at CONSERVATIVE politics. That's why it gets old while South Park and even The Daily Show remain fresh. They spread it around.
And your point is... what exactly?
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred?
Festering mouth is right, and its not hatred. Any Projection is on your part.
If I see someone walking around with a festering wound for a mouth I don't hate them, but I sure am concerned that something dangerously ungood is happening.
No, of course you don't hate them. You just call their mouth a "festering wound" and claim that their actions can only lead to "something dangerously ungood", but no hatred at all there.
Of course, these people are only guilty of have a point of view that is different than your own and as we all know, anyone that does not agree with you has a "festering wound" for a mouth.
Yeah. No personal attacks there. Only pure fact and logic. When someone disagrees with you, they are obviously scum of the earth with no hope of completing anything worth while. Seriously, how could I possibly refute the "festering mouth" argument? It's a plain to see as the Chewbacca defense and equally unrefutable.