Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

[Markle]

Uh yeah dumbass your right. That is my point. If people earn too little and work 40 hours a week, the mega rich obviously make too much.

 

[Billy000]

Uh yeah dumbass your right. That is my point. If people earn too little and work 40 hours a week, the mega rich obviously make too much.

Now you’re just making shit up.

 

[Billy000]

Uh yeah dumbass your right. That is my point. If people earn too little and work 40 hours a week, the mega rich obviously make too much.

You know, deep down I know it bothers you that a half a dozen people make more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans COMBINED, but you are too much of a pussy to admit it on this board. Hell, 78% of American workers report working paycheck to paycheck. Facts are what they are.

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

Once again, in my lifetime, Jeff Bezos has acquired about $114 BILLION and Bill Gates about $104 BILLION.

Specifically how much has that taken out of your pocket? How much RICHER would you be if they never existed?

IF 78 percent of American workers live paycheck to paycheck, isn't that their personal responsibility? It is also a great thing since nearly four out of five workers are confident that they will be employed next paycheck and the next. Also, if they don't like their job, they can quit, find another job and not be injured.

Thank you!

As for my being bothered that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have nearly a QUARTER OF A TRILLION in wealth between them, I am thrilled! How many multi-millionaires have both of them created? How many high paying jobs?

My personal income (I'm a Realtor) increased when I adopted computers in the day of the green screen, no photos and program it yourself to merge a letter and print envelopes. It skyrocketed when I bought Microsoft Office.

Their personal responsibility? If this same poll was conducted in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, the result wouldn’t nearly be as high as 78%. This obviously is less to do with being lazy and much more to do with what is actually available to workers in this day and age. Higher wage jobs these days are much more competitive than they were years back. This is about what people are capable of getting. Millions of workers have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

 

[toobfreak]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

 

[Billy000]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

 

[toobfreak]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

Sorry Junior but the Founders largely originally OPPOSED a bill of rights thinking them unnecessary. It was a group of anti-Federalists who finally helped push it through.

 

[Billy000]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

Sorry Junior but the Founders largely originally OPPOSED a bill of rights thinking them unnecessary. It was a group of anti-Federalists who finally helped push it through.

Why would anti-federalists support a federal document?

 

[toobfreak]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

Sorry Junior but the Founders largely originally OPPOSED a bill of rights thinking them unnecessary. It was a group of anti-Federalists who finally helped push it through.

Why would anti-federalists support a federal document?

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ idiot

 

[The Purge]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Talk about being extreme...

 

[Markle]

Their personal responsibility? If this same poll was conducted in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, the result wouldn’t nearly be as high as 78%. This obviously is less to do with being lazy and much more to do with what is actually available to workers in this day and age. Higher wage jobs these days are much more competitive than they were years back. This is about what people are capable of getting. Millions of workers have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

Then show us what it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. If you cannot, then it is just as easily said that it was much higher in those years.

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

Once again, in my lifetime, Jeff Bezos has acquired about $114 BILLION and Bill Gates about $104 BILLION.

Specifically how much has that taken out of your pocket? How much RICHER would you be if they never existed?

Oh, by the way, if you're going to use apostrophes in that sentence they would be placed ahead of the numbers. For example the '50s, '60s, etc. Given your fastidious attention to facts and details, I knew you'd want to make that correction.

 

[Markle]

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

Actually, they did reject Socialism although the term had not yet been invented. Collectivism was tried and failed miserably. Not at all unlike every time it has been tried since. Total failure.

The First Thanksgiving: Reclaiming Jamestown From the Dustbin of History
Daniel Honan on November 23, 2011, 3:00 PM
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41186?page=all

Cannibalism in Jamestown
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...f5b474-b1dc-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

Thanksgiving: The Story of America’s Experiment with Communism and Capitalism
By Kayleigh McEnany:
November 22, 2011 8:53 AM EST

We were all taught about the Pilgrims and Indians, but most of us do not know the real story of Thanksgiving -- the failure of communism and the triumph of capitalism.

Long before Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, and the days of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, the Pilgrims conducted a communist experiment that exposed the system's downfalls and led them to communism's natural antithesis and the economic system we extol today -- capitalism. The incomplete narrative we were told growing up went something like this:

In 1620, the Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower and set sail for the New World. According to their leader, Plymouth Governor William Bradford, they found "cold barren desolate wilderness" upon their arrival in November. The Pilgrims endured a long, cold, and deadly winter during which half of them perished. When spring arrived, the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to cultivate the land, thereby saving the new settlers.

More often than not, this is where the account ends. But this is not the whole story of Thanksgiving -- far from it. This was just the beginning.

Even though the Indians did, indeed, teach the Pilgrims to farm, fish, and hunt in the spring of 1621, the Pilgrims did not yet prosper. It would be three long years before the Pilgrims could thank God for their plenty. The Pilgrims had the instructional manual right in front of them. They knew what to do, but could not do it. Why did it take them years to turn theory into practice? What was the impediment to their success? In hindsight, the answer is clear.

As Paul Harvey would say, and now the rest of the story:

After encountering losses in Jamestown, investors were loath to fund voyages to the New World. Any subsidized expedition would be accompanied by strict and unfavorable stipulations. For the Pilgrims, the condition was that all the wealth that they accrued would be "common wealth."

At the end of seven years, the colonists were to split all of their wealth equally with their investors in London. There would be no private property, since this might incentivize the colonists to toil harder on their own land rather than the common land. So, from 1620 to 1622, Plymouth was essentially a commune with all land and profits owned by the community as a whole.

The result of this communal style of living was disastrous. Death, starvation and disease ensued. The Pilgrims were "languish[ing] in mystery" in the words of Bradford. Although Plymouth was filled with "godly and sober men," he said the community fell victim to sloth, laziness, and the refusal to work.

Why? For the same reason communism never works; it's the free-rider effect. The few who break their backs working watch the fruits of their labor go to the lazy or the free-riders who latch onto their coattails without doing any of the work themselves.

Bradford found a solution to the Pilgrims' woes:

"At length, after much debate of things, the Governor... gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves... And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number." In short, property was privatized, and the colonists experienced "very good success."

Bradford acknowledged the folly of their previous ways: "The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years... that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God."

Realizing that communism was not the answer, that each man can only appreciate the things he earns, the Pilgrims continued to privatize more and more over the years. In doing so, they wrote not just the story of Thanksgiving, but also the story of America.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/254...ing-capitalism-communism-pilgrims-america.htm

Another source about Jamestown
Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America

As a Realtor for nearly fifty years, I learned the history of Jamestown decades ago as it set the basis for our private property rights.

 

[Billy000]

Perhaps the rightwing wouldn’t be so extreme if Ayn Rand never existed

We have a real problem in this country when a party of nitwits have swung so far to the Left that they now see a group of constitutional conservatives reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers as being "extreme."

Except that you misunderstood the founding fathers. Just because they wrote the bill of rights, it doesn’t mean they rejected the idea of collectivism.

Sorry Junior but the Founders largely originally OPPOSED a bill of rights thinking them unnecessary. It was a group of anti-Federalists who finally helped push it through.

Why would anti-federalists support a federal document?

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ idiot

You still haven’t explained it lol

 

[Billy000]

Their personal responsibility? If this same poll was conducted in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, the result wouldn’t nearly be as high as 78%. This obviously is less to do with being lazy and much more to do with what is actually available to workers in this day and age. Higher wage jobs these days are much more competitive than they were years back. This is about what people are capable of getting. Millions of workers have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

Then show us what it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. If you cannot, then it is just as easily said that it was much higher in those years.

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

Once again, in my lifetime, Jeff Bezos has acquired about $114 BILLION and Bill Gates about $104 BILLION.

Specifically how much has that taken out of your pocket? How much RICHER would you be if they never existed?

Oh, by the way, if you're going to use apostrophes in that sentence they would be placed ahead of the numbers. For example the '50s, '60s, etc. Given your fastidious attention to facts and details, I knew you'd want to make that correction.

Um well none was taken out of my paycheck. I never said they took money out of established wages. Perhaps you aren’t smart enough to understand the nuance of economics but sure I’ll explain it again. I said that they kept wages low. Meaning, despite the lower classes skyrocketing productivity and the skyrocketing profits of the corporations these workers worked at, their wages have barely grown. The large majority of income gains in this country have gone to the top 5%-1% of workers. Why does this matter? Well it’s because there’s a thing called inflation and cost of living. The last time someone could live comfortably off of $10 per hour with a full time job was the 1960’s. Are you catching on yet?

Man really my grammar? You really are getting desperate lol.

 

[Markle]

Their personal responsibility? If this same poll was conducted in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, the result wouldn’t nearly be as high as 78%. This obviously is less to do with being lazy and much more to do with what is actually available to workers in this day and age. Higher wage jobs these days are much more competitive than they were years back. This is about what people are capable of getting. Millions of workers have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

Then show us what it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. If you cannot, then it is just as easily said that it was much higher in those years.

Why are you afraid to answer my question?

Once again, in my lifetime, Jeff Bezos has acquired about $114 BILLION and Bill Gates about $104 BILLION.

Specifically how much has that taken out of your pocket? How much RICHER would you be if they never existed?

Oh, by the way, if you're going to use apostrophes in that sentence they would be placed ahead of the numbers. For example the '50s, '60s, etc. Given your fastidious attention to facts and details, I knew you'd want to make that correction.

Um well none was taken out of my paycheck. I never said they took money out of established wages. Perhaps you aren’t smart enough to understand the nuance of economics but sure I’ll explain it again. I said that they kept wages low. Meaning, despite the lower classes skyrocketing productivity and the skyrocketing profits of the corporations these workers worked at, their wages have barely grown. The large majority of income gains in this country have gone to the top 5%-1% of workers. Why does this matter? Well it’s because there’s a thing called inflation and cost of living. The last time someone could live comfortably off of $10 per hour with a full time job was the 1960’s. Are you catching on yet?

Man really my grammar? You really are getting desperate lol.

Um well...if none came out of your paycheck, and none came out of mine, how did it hurt me in any way? I don't see that they have any of my net wealth either.

As you know, the productivity of lower-income workers has grown because of automation and robots. Instead of ten men to prime and paint a new car, one man runs the robot that moves one body after another through a machine that spray paints them perfectly in a fraction of the time a man could do the same.

Take a team of two that patrol the streets in large cities putting on boots of those who a delinquint in paying numerous parking tickets. In the past, one entered the numbers into a laptop manually. They could enter about two thousand license plate numbers in a day. In comes the license plate scanner. Mounted on the roof of the same vehicle. Now they can "read" 10,000 plates in a day. A HUGE increase in productivity at no additional labor cost.

As for $10.00 per hour. I'm sorry but no one should expect to have an apartment and family with no experience and no skills.

Wages in the United States increased to 23.65 USD/Hour in September from 23.59 USD/Hour in August of 2019. Wages in the United States averaged 11.31 USD/Hour from 1964 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 23.65 USD/Hour in September of 2019 and a record low of 2.50 USD/Hour in February of 1964.

As you know too, since President Donald Trump took office, inflation has lagged behind his increases in wages.

I only mention your grammar because I knew it would tie your panties in a knot. Progressives are such snowflakes!

With that in mind, you again insist on misusing such a simple thing as the apostrophy. For instance: "was the 1960’s. Are you catching on yet"? You should not have used an apostrophe. Where you are using it is to show the possessive for a noun. Proper English is the 1960s shows the plural.

Proper use is Billy000's house is beautiful.

I bet you have no clue about commas either!

 

[JWBooth]

Rand was a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual hypocrite.

The problem with philosophers like her was their extremism and black and white values. The idea of rejecting any form of collectivism is ridiculous and impossible to live one’s life by. Rand, specifically, accepted Medicare which ran completely counter to the values she spewed. It’s impossible to live one’s life on a purely individual basis. Society could not function without a degree of collectivism.

“Degree” is a keyword here. What many republicans fail to understand is that there must be an inevitable middle ground between individualism and collectivism in order for civilization to exist. Obviously, a degree of individual freedom is critical to human happiness, but that doesn’t mean one must reject collective values like socialism. Hell, America has embraced socialism since the founding. Paying taxes for services one benefits from has always been a socialist idea. Just because you support our defense budget, our military, public education for kids, Social Security, etc does not mean these aren’t socialist principles. The problem is that republicans don’t really understand what socialism actually means. They think socialism is all about not having job and living off welfare and capitalism being a mutually exclusive idea. Granted those ideas are socialist in nature, but it doesn’t mean that is some catch-all definition or that American progressives support those ideas.

This is worth repeating: while there are some few exceptions, American progressives by and large don’t want to abolish the private market nor do we want everyone being unemployed and living off the dole. We also don’t want everyone making the same wage regardless of the work. Obviously wealthy people serve a vital purpose to our economy - they just need strict limitations that currently aren’t in place. The ideology is quite nuanced, but republicans like to pretend otherwise.

Hang on. I’ve heard this one before...
”Everything Within the State, Nothing Against the State, Nothing Outside the State”

 

[Mac1958]

I think it's more about daily submersion in talk radio, with its pseudo - psycho - bizarro libertarian preaching mixed with a comical defense of big spending.

You can't blame them for being so mal-informed, really.
.

None of Randian anarchist philosophy is anywhere to be found on the radio.

Are you in a contest with C Foghorn Leghorn to be the most mal-informed blowhard on the forum?

Could be. I think we all know that only Trumpsters have The Truth on their side.
.

 

[Oddball]

Did you notice how I didn’t talk about free shit for myself in my OP? Try to pay attention cupcake.

You claim to be a Socialist Democrat. That's just the far-lefts feeble effort to soften the word SOCIALIST. You are offended by what you see as a wealth gap, although you cannot demonstrate to us how Bill Gates' wealth of $105 BILLION has taken a dime out of your pocket. You believe that government should dictate wages, profits, who gets what. How is that not Socialism?

Why do you find it necessary to call people names? Does that make you feel better?

You can call my labels whatever you want, but what actually matters is what I wrote in my OP. How dense are you? I don’t mind that Bill Gates lives a life of luxury and I don’t, but the only reason he became someone worth 105 billion is because he and others like him kept the workers under him at wages they could barley live off. Doesn’t it bother you that he is worth that much money while 78% of American workers report living paycheck to paycheck? My solution isn’t to strip him of his billions. My solution is support policies that keep anyone working 40 hours a week out of poverty. That’s it:

How does this basic nuance of thought escape you?

I don't know whether your understanding of philosophy or economics is more monumentally retarded.

Suffice to say you know little to nothing about either.

 

[Oddball]

I think it's more about daily submersion in talk radio, with its pseudo - psycho - bizarro libertarian preaching mixed with a comical defense of big spending.

You can't blame them for being so mal-informed, really.
.

None of Randian anarchist philosophy is anywhere to be found on the radio.

Are you in a contest with C Foghorn Leghorn to be the most mal-informed blowhard on the forum?

Could be. I think we all know that only Trumpsters have The Truth on their side.
.

The closest person I recall on the radio who even referenced Rand was Jason Lewis, and he has surrendered the microphone to run for Senate in MN.

Most of the Trumpsters wouldn't know an objectivist from a Pop Tart.

 

[Mac1958]

I think it's more about daily submersion in talk radio, with its pseudo - psycho - bizarro libertarian preaching mixed with a comical defense of big spending.

You can't blame them for being so mal-informed, really.
.

None of Randian anarchist philosophy is anywhere to be found on the radio.

Are you in a contest with C Foghorn Leghorn to be the most mal-informed blowhard on the forum?

Could be. I think we all know that only Trumpsters have The Truth on their side.
.

The closest person I recall on the radio who even referenced Rand was Jason Lewis, and he has surrendered the microphone to run for Senate in MN.

Most of the Trumpsters wouldn't know an objectivist from a Pop Tart.

You clearly didn't understand the "pseudo - psycho - bizarro libertarian" part of my post. I thought it was clear that meant that it is not actual Randian libertarianism.

But I'm sure you're right.
.

 

[Gdjjr]

Rand was a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual hypocrite.

The problem with philosophers like her was their extremism and black and white values. The idea of rejecting any form of collectivism is ridiculous and impossible to live one’s life by. Rand, specifically, accepted Medicare which ran completely counter to the values she spewed. It’s impossible to live one’s life on a purely individual basis. Society could not function without a degree of collectivism.

“Degree” is a keyword here. What many republicans fail to understand is that there must be an inevitable middle ground between individualism and collectivism in order for civilization to exist. Obviously, a degree of individual freedom is critical to human happiness, but that doesn’t mean one must reject collective values like socialism. Hell, America has embraced socialism since the founding. Paying taxes for services one benefits from has always been a socialist idea. Just because you support our defense budget, our military, public education for kids, Social Security, etc does not mean these aren’t socialist principles. The problem is that republicans don’t really understand what socialism actually means. They think socialism is all about not having job and living off welfare and capitalism being a mutually exclusive idea. Granted those ideas are socialist in nature, but it doesn’t mean that is some catch-all definition or that American progressives support those ideas.

This is worth repeating: while there are some few exceptions, American progressives by and large don’t want to abolish the private market nor do we want everyone being unemployed and living off the dole. We also don’t want everyone making the same wage regardless of the work. Obviously wealthy people serve a vital purpose to our economy - they just need strict limitations that currently aren’t in place. The ideology is quite nuanced, but republicans like to pretend otherwise.

Extreme???

One party wears a pro American slogan on their heads.

The other wears PUSSYS on their heads and masks on their faces.

Who's extreme?

God you people lack any objectivity whatsoever. It’s impossible to take you seriously. Okay so women who attended a march wore pussy hats and you somehow think that is what Leftwingers in general wear when in reality we don’t. I guess it gives you a false sense of manliness and toughness just pretending that leftwing men wear pussy hats but obviously real life doesn’t fit in with that narrative.

No political group is objective- just saying.