What value is in a view you can't defend or build a case for? You are essentially bigging dude up for being a mindless contrarian, and also low key admitting to being a coward yourself for being "afraid" to say how you really feel. Afraid of what? What does anyone gain here by only sticking to "popular" opinions?
Republicans Try to Cut Food Stamps as 15% of U.S. Households Face Hunger
- Thread starter No1
- Start date
Brown_Pride
All Star
why would he be banned? For having a differing opinion? Me thinks not.
Also, what's wrong with emotion?
How is he being a mindless contrarian? I'm not afraid, it's really just not worth it. Easier just to stick to sports....I enjoy the argument, not when its 100 on 1 though.
Nothing wrong with emotion, just the covering your ears and screaming type arguments get old and childish after a while.
Having a different opinion than the masses here generally doesnt go over too well. Ya'll are a bunch of sharks.
That would be government, not the market.
little regulation?
Chasing the mirage of results equality/social justice?
Corporatism?
Initiation of force?
Taking from one man to support another man?
Consumption taxes are not force...
Saying I think anything isnt the same as defining somethingYou've been making comments on how you think redistributing wealth is morally wrong all over this thread.now you want to back off that? Don't be a fukkin ho.say what you mean.
you wouldn't even be able to get away with this low level commentary in a community college breh.You've been manipulated into defending an ideology that you nor 99% of society wouldn't benefit from.it's evident whose education has failed them
and the rest is false.
Sit this one out boo boo...
Tommy Knocks
retired
I really hate when cacs use percentage, if you do the numbers, thats about 14 million. subtract 14 million from 49 million you have 35 million starving whites. why can't they just put that in numbers? alongside the minority percentage? oh that's right because it looks bad aesthetically. the majority within the starving bracket are white people. yes I understand its because they are the majority, however, if you're going to put it in percentage, ALSO ADD THAT 75% OF THE STARVING ARE WHITE. fukk. I get fukked pissed with this shyt.
When you show ALL the numbers, it puts things into perspective and might actually prevent some of these laws from being passed due to being racial "I dont want to support these poor lazy blacks" NO you fool you're also effecting your own people too!!!!
When you show ALL the numbers, it puts things into perspective and might actually prevent some of these laws from being passed due to being racial "I dont want to support these poor lazy blacks" NO you fool you're also effecting your own people too!!!!
Infographic: Stop Slashing SNAP
By Sarah Baron and Melissa Boteach | September 16, 2013
See also: 30 Years of Tackling Hunger on a Bipartisan Basis Is in Danger of Failing This Fall by Erik Stegman and Nicole Williams
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2013/09/16/74122/infographic-stop-slashing-snap/
Tommy Knocks
retired
I'm all for making welfare more strict from the cheats and making people get off their ass and all that, but something about cutting food "which humans need to survive" seems very wrong. Money is one thing, but food? I dont know how I feel about that. No one in a superpower should starve, in fact, this economy is so powerful that if you cut the defense spending in half, you could actually give everyone food stamps and feed the nation for free (ok Im exaggerating we'd be on rations but still pretty impressive, esp since you could buy what the stamps dont cover at least). that's insane.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Consumption taxes are not force...
so if they taxed medical expenses (consumption) to fund this you'd be ok with that? Or if they increased federal sales tax to cover this you'd be ok with it? Interesting.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Now you're confusing me. So was regulation ok? And was it the government he forced textile factories to employee kids? Was it the government who persuaded pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs they knew would kill people because they knew it would be more profitable to pay off the victims while raking in the profits? Was the government who forced farmers to have slaves? That shyt was perpetrated by industry, not government.That would be government, not the market.
little regulation?
Chasing the mirage of results equality/social justice?
Corporatism?
Initiation of force?
Taking from one man to support another man?
Government sets the rules, industry plays the game....typically toeing the "rules line" as closely as possible.
Is paying someone $1.00 a week and profiting millions not "taking from one man to pay another?" If the government allows such activity you'd be ok with it then I assume?
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Saying I think anything isnt the same as defining something
and the rest is false.
Lets recap this. You took the position that redistributing wealth from one group to another is morally wrong (which is an objective ethical claim) which prompted my post not too long ago. Then you stated you "I don't think you should initiate force against any free man." One can assume you feel this way because you think that initiating force against another man is morally wrong in all cases.You then proceeded to imply that morality is subjective in that same post. Here's the problem. Your entire libertarian worldview is based on your position that the redistribution of wealth is morally wrong. But if morality is subjective, like you implied, your entire argument and philosophy falls apart to nothing. You're basically arguing against yourself here.There are 2 possibilities to explore now:1. You don't know what the words subjective and objective mean or 2. You are incapable of forming a coherent, consistent argument. I'm leaning towards 2, since I'm assuming you finished elementary school and know the definitions of commonly used words.And I'm really not trying to be a dikk, but I'm embarrassed for you when I read your posts. You're basically clinging to ideas that rich industrialists shoved down middle America's throat that have no basis in reality. When you find yourself on the side of inbred cacs from Tennessee, its time to take a step back and reexamine your thought process. Part of the problem is most people have an overinflated view of their own intelligence. You just have to know your own limitations breh. When you reach that point, you will stop making yourself look like a fool.
I want taxes to be as low as possible, and obviously the less Gov. does, and the smaller our military is, the less they "have" to tax.
That said, I wouldnt see anything morally wrong with an increase in a flat consumption tax. I would just b*tch that taxes are too high like everyone else.
Slavery pre dates any government/economy so we leave that out. Its a silly argument.
I personally would love to see teenagers working now, as oppose to what we currently have, with a record number of murders in the inner city.
If business worked the way you envision, why isnt everyone making minimum wage now???
If a board feels that a specific person is worth X amount of their $$$$, I dont anyone not directly involved in that transaction should have any say. If he fails and the go belly up, does anyone else pay their bills? no. So why should we decide who, what, and they run things.
CEO pay is subject to the same supply and demand elements the lowly fry cooks pay is.
@Brown_Pride
But to answer you directly, I would like reactionary action, not preventive. If people are poisoned by some one, go after that person. Adding regulation(to prevent) makes it harder for those not poisoning people(the vast majority), and is unfair. These regulation also create barriers to entry.
But to answer you directly, I would like reactionary action, not preventive. If people are poisoned by some one, go after that person. Adding regulation(to prevent) makes it harder for those not poisoning people(the vast majority), and is unfair. These regulation also create barriers to entry.
And I'm really not trying to be a dikk, but I'm embarrassed for you when I read your posts. You're basically clinging to ideas that rich industrialists shoved down middle America's throat that have no basis in reality. When you find yourself on the side of inbred cacs from Tennessee, its time to take a step back and reexamine your thought process. Part of the problem is most people have an overinflated view of their own intelligence. You just have to know your own limitations breh. When you reach that point, you will stop making yourself look like a fool.
are you still quoting what I said "I think" and trying to say i presented it as a fact or as definitive/objective in any way? When some one begins with "i think" that lets you know off the bat that... you know what never mind. I actually have no problem defending the 'initiation of force being wrong' position. I'll assert it as a moral truth just to help you out ...
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
If you weren't so dense, you'd realize I was criticizing you on this before you made that silly post. You've been arguing the last several pages that redistributing wealth from one unconsenting party to another is morally wrong. Now you're backing off that?