Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
-
Because you keep bitching about taxes and yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Thats because I don't believe a word of it. There is nothing about Obama that suggests either honesty or a respect for the middleclass. And even if he does carry thorugh on his promise, the tax increases on the "wealthy" (and who the hell is he to even define such a concept) will suppress investments and spending, and will therefore be very likely severly inhibit my opportunitites to earn any income at all to be taxed on.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, 'redistribution of wealth' is a Marxist concept by anyone's definition
Every time a Capitalist buys low and sells high, he too is redistributing the wealth. Every time a government pays big bucks to a defense contractor, it is redistributing the wealth. Every time the government yanks some National Guardsman out of his job and sends him to fight on active duty for a year, it is redistributing the wealth. It's not that I disagree with your basic premise, but you need to define your terms better.
And every time a rich guy signs my pay check its redistributing wealth. Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need. That is precisely the kind of redistribution of wealth Obama is referring to. Every other kind is perfectuly ok in a capitalistic society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So how come you as a wage slave are so much more unable to see that Capitalism, unchecked, has egregious faults than I, who spent half his working life meeting payrolls, am?
I fully acknowledge that capitalism is imperfect. It should be imperfect. But there is no adequate alternative to those imperfections. I don't consider myself to be a 'wage slave'. I very much enjoy living in a society in which I can freely exchange my services for another person's wealth. That is the very definition of freedom. There is no other definition. Frankly, I have never wanted to be responsible for managing a payroll (although I do have a thriving 1099 side 'business' with one employee - me) Being an accountant bores the hell out of me. Hell, I get bored budgeting my own income.
Oakman wrote:
Ka made pretty much the same argument you are addressing and I suggested that anyone identified as being congentitally incapable of working hard should have their reproductive rights eliminated. (snip, snip).
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Al Beback wrote:
yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Thats because I don't believe a word of it. There is nothing about Obama that suggests either honesty or a respect for the middleclass. And even if he does carry thorugh on his promise, the tax increases on the "wealthy" (and who the hell is he to even define such a concept) will suppress investments and spending, and will therefore be very likely severly inhibit my opportunitites to earn any income at all to be taxed on.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And every time a rich guy signs my pay check its redistributing wealth. Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need. That is precisely the kind of redistribution of wealth Obama is referring to. Every other kind is perfectuly ok in a capitalistic society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need.
Actually no. I think you mean: Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on wealth and giving to those based upon need. At least as far as I have heard, Socialists are just as willing to take money from an incompetent - like, say, Rumsfeld, as from a competent, like say, Romney.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because I don't believe a word of it.
And you do believe McCain???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you do believe McCain???
Not so much. I think he is an intrinsically more honest person than Obama. But I certainly believe that he will be even less likey to keep any promist to conservatives than Bush was. He will probably keep his promises to everyone else as best he can. But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Certainly. But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need.
Actually no. I think you mean: Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on wealth and giving to those based upon need. At least as far as I have heard, Socialists are just as willing to take money from an incompetent - like, say, Rumsfeld, as from a competent, like say, Romney.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sorry. Yes, I think the quote is something more like "from those with means to those with need" or something like that, except in German of course. Still, most of those with means will be those with ability, plus a few lucky incompetents I suppose. I'm actually pretty sure though that most of the incomptents will be those with need.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Certainly. But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
And you do believe McCain???
Not so much. I think he is an intrinsically more honest person than Obama. But I certainly believe that he will be even less likey to keep any promist to conservatives than Bush was. He will probably keep his promises to everyone else as best he can. But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Well, they certainly haven't put their money where their mouth is (I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either), so if by some strange quirk of fate he won, they'd have no-one to blame for their lack of access but themselves.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sorry. Yes, I think the quote is something more like "from those with means to those with need" or something like that, except in German of course. Still, most of those with means will be those with ability, plus a few lucky incompetents I suppose. I'm actually pretty sure though that most of the incomptents will be those with need.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Well, they certainly haven't put their money where their mouth is (I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either), so if by some strange quirk of fate he won, they'd have no-one to blame for their lack of access but themselves.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
(I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either),
I sent a money to Fred Thompson's campaign. I was going to send money to McCain after he selected Palin, but by the time I got around to he had already pissed me off again so I declined. Frankly, I'm glad the conservatives have not supported him. Save our money for a better candidate later.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
As well as the founders of our own nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
As well as the founders of our own nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As well as the founders of our own nation
Not at all. They set up a very libertarian confederacy. Then when the founders weren't looking a bunch of professional politicians hijacked the second convention and wrote the constitution.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
(I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either),
I sent a money to Fred Thompson's campaign. I was going to send money to McCain after he selected Palin, but by the time I got around to he had already pissed me off again so I declined. Frankly, I'm glad the conservatives have not supported him. Save our money for a better candidate later.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As well as the founders of our own nation
Not at all. They set up a very libertarian confederacy. Then when the founders weren't looking a bunch of professional politicians hijacked the second convention and wrote the constitution.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:rolleyes: I would be perfectly happy if the articles of confederation were maintained, but they certainly did not represent a libertarian confederation. But both the original articles and the constitution both limited voting rights to (white male) land owners. They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote. I share that sentiment.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Save our money for a better candidate later.
I didn't think there was going to be another one. Won't Obama declare himself Beloved Leader for Life in a couple of years?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Won't Obama declare himself Beloved Leader for Life in a couple of years?
Could be. But that would be fine with me. At least it would answer the question of whether or not there is anything left of American zeal for liberty.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
:rolleyes: I would be perfectly happy if the articles of confederation were maintained, but they certainly did not represent a libertarian confederation. But both the original articles and the constitution both limited voting rights to (white male) land owners. They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote. I share that sentiment.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote.
Perhaps the fact that they were all white male land oweners had something to do with it, eh? I agree, by the way. I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote.
Perhaps the fact that they were all white male land oweners had something to do with it, eh? I agree, by the way. I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Indeed I do, one of which would be the difference between what one pays in taxes and what one receives in welfare or other subsidies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.