Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.
the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.
WTF? You're using 1999 data now?
Jesus. You are thick.
The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.
There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.
Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.
There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.
"The lessons of history show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
I hate to think you don't know just how many Americans are falling into "your" definition "no home, no heat no food" they grow daily
"Did you know that there are thousands upon thousands of homeless people that are living underground beneath the streets of major U.S. cities? It is happening i n Las Vegas, it is happening in New York City and it is even happening in Kansas City. As the economy crumbles, poverty in the United States isabsolutely exploding and so is homelessness. In addition to the thousands of tunnel people living under the streets of America, there are also thousands that are living in tent cities, there are tens of thousands that are living in their vehicles and there are more than a million public school children that do not have a home to go back to at night.
Homeless Americans living at underground beneath | Time to wake up!
And at the bottom of all that drivel linked to in post #58, was a link labeled 'The Solution'
THE ISLAMIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Yup, that's Jossy pimping 'Koranic economics'....... LMAO!!!!
WTF? You're using 1999 data now?
Jesus. You are thick.
Please.....don't hesitate to show where the premise is incorrect.
Let's review:
a. there is no perennial rich or poor class in America.
b. you're a dunce.
Sorry. I thought the central premise of your initial expose was inequality.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention this (in keeping with the high level of debate in your threads): You're fucked up.
Bottom line first?
OK....there is no such thing as a modern industrialized society in which everyone can or will be materially, or in any other way, "equal."
Wise up.
as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.
the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.
Of course not.
Y'all want to take 99% of the wealth and keep it in the elite .001% of Hollywood, Rap, politicians, Union bosses, and party bosses.
The OTHER 1% you are willing to divide evenly among the peasants...
you guys need to get your stories straight. Some of you righties claim that democrats want to take all the wealth away from the rich and spread it all around until everyone has exactly the same equal amount of wealth... and some of you think that we want to take 99% for democratic elite. WHich is it? Both of them are equally wacky and equally unsupportable by any facts, but I really wish I knew what the argument was your side was trying to present. It would seem that you all don't know yourself. It's like your hyperbolic streams of inane bullshit have crossed!
this thread is a strawman.
most Progressives and Liberals aren't looking for total and perfect equality.
we are looking simply for more equality and less inequality.
that means a larger middle class.
that means more rights and benefits for workers.
that means more wealth of the nation in the hands of the middle class and poor and not just shoved up the ass of the super wealthy.
we want the wealth distribution of the 1950s to return.
more wealth and higher standard of living for everyone, not just the super rich.
that doesn't mean everyone must have the same income.
that doesn't mean there can no longer be rich people or poor people.
such a claim is a stupid strawman.
this thread is a strawman.
most Progressives and Liberals aren't looking for total and perfect equality.
we are looking simply for more equality and less inequality.
No, but you are looking for total and absolute control of the people by the state.
that means a larger middle class.
You seek to expand the middle class by completely eradicating it?
Kewl plan, stan.
that means more rights and benefits for workers.
that means more wealth of the nation in the hands of the middle class and poor and not just shoved up the ass of the super wealthy.
we want the wealth distribution of the 1950s to return.
more wealth and higher standard of living for everyone, not just the super rich.
that doesn't mean everyone must have the same income.
that doesn't mean there can no longer be rich people or poor people.
such a claim is a stupid strawman.
You want the wealth distribution of 1917 to return. And of course there will be rich people - they will be party members - and the left will always have the poor, lots of poor - 99.9% in abject poverty. Makes them more pliable....
You offer the paradise of North Korea for all Americans.
I would appreciate you not lying about my views.
I want more equality, not total equality.
I want a larger middle class and larger wealthy class, and a smaller number of poor people.
I want more workers to have good benefits. I want salaries to go up.
Don't lie about my views again. Thank you.
you guys need to get your stories straight. Some of you righties claim that democrats want to take all the wealth away from the rich and spread it all around until everyone has exactly the same equal amount of wealth... and some of you think that we want to take 99% for democratic elite. WHich is it? Both of them are equally wacky and equally unsupportable by any facts, but I really wish I knew what the argument was your side was trying to present. It would seem that you all don't know yourself. It's like your hyperbolic streams of inane bullshit have crossed!
One thing about the left, y'all just LOVE the rich. Who is more celebrity obsessed than Barack Obama, yeah, part of it's because he's gay, and gay men go gaga over celebs; but the left in general is in love with the ultra-rich.
Algore, George Soros, Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, et at - that top .001% is the core of the left.
What the left hates - with a passion - is the middle class, what the French and Marx termed the Bourgeoisie. The war the left wages is against the middle, not the Aristocracy - notice that Obama exempted Hollywood from tax increases - those are for the upstarts in the middle - another way the left is pulling the ladder up.
From Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Obama, the left has always coddled and protected the elite. Obama wages war to destroy the middle class, Hollywood billionaires are not targeted, nor the athletes performing the circuses that keep the sheep distracted - nor the well connected looters like Warren Buffet, What the left seeks is to keep those usurpers who climb the economic ladder beyond their station, in poverty and dependent.
Heard a lefty once declare "There was a time when my having a car phone was a symbol of power - now the unwashed have them - takes all the fun out of it."
you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?
you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?
I answered your question.
democrats do not seek to take the wealth from the rich, they seek to strip all wealth from the middle.
When Obama promotes punishing "the rich," he always defines "rich" as those making $250K - not Matt Damon who pulls down $100 million per film - nor Algore who sells his propaganda empire to Al Jazeera for $70 million - they aren't "the rich" that Obama looks to crush - they are just loyal party members. No, it's the small business owner, the doctor and the dentist that Obama seeks to grind into the dirt.
Obamunism - it sucks to be us....
not people making $250k, people making MORE THAN $250k.... That includes Matt Damon, Al Gore, George Soros, Barbra Striesand, George Clooney, and ALL them rich Hollywood libruls!you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?
I answered your question.
democrats do not seek to take the wealth from the rich, they seek to strip all wealth from the middle.
When Obama promotes punishing "the rich," he always defines "rich" as those making $250K - not Matt Damon who pulls down $100 million per film - nor Algore who sells his propaganda empire to Al Jazeera for $70 million - they aren't "the rich" that Obama looks to crush - they are just loyal party members. No, it's the small business owner, the doctor and the dentist that Obama seeks to grind into the dirt.
Obamunism - it sucks to be us....
