What’s the problem with ing about it?
And every day that passes you more and more about the reality of it. But I don't believe in a doctrinally evil state because I don't believe in evil. I believe these "individuals" find the most efficient means to better themselves and their offspring, and often that means stepping on others.
What’s the problem with ing about it?
If it isn't true what's there to about?
He's talking about changing the entire system, not just increase of taxes but a change in how those taxes are used. That's simply not going to happen when the same group of career wealthy folks are cycling through the offices. What's so hard to understand about the concept of individuals shoring up their own wealth, and a political system that ensures the masses will be salved by "change" (they all preach it), so they can continue putting the people into powerful positions, people that have no plans on change?
That's what we were discussing.
It's funny you think I am concerned about it. I am laughing at the ideologue mentality you espouse, as if you saying it gives power to the idea. Keep jousting those windmills.
Why would something being true or false preclude ing? It’s true that Mitch doesn’t want to send $2000 checks. ing about that being morally/philosophically/whatever wrong isn’t unwarranted.
If you say I believe in something that's not true, then you proceed to about it as if it is true, there's a conflict. Otherwise I have no idea what you're objecting to.
Keep having a conversation with yourself, you can't differ with others honestly. There is no objective, ideology-free viewpoint from which to criticize others. If you think there is, that's just indoctrination.
So you don't think it is going to happen so people should just give up? That is some egomaniacal and specious argumentation.
And i am not interested in your pseudo-objectivist rationalizations of US society.
I don’t believe there’s election fraud, but I would certainly about claims of election fraud.
There’s no conflict there.
Sorry, to round out the thought, I object to the notion that because somebody doesn’t adhere to something, they’re precluded from ing about it. Because you don’t believe something to be true doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you in some way. Religion is a notorious example.
Discussion boards are for discussion. Talk ain't much but it's not nothing.
Things that a lot of people talk about *sometimes* make the political to do list. If people didn't talk about them, they might not make it on the agenda.
ing about the claims isn't the same as ing about the fraud. Why would you about something you don't believe happened?
Talk is nothing.
There's a difference, again, between ing about the effects of religion and ing about God.
It's not going to happen. What would he be giving up, talking about it?
Get over yourself, idiot.
Unlike you I don't paint the other side as melting down every time someone disagrees with me. I also don't post every news story I find online like some OCD shut-in.
You're overselling youself, you provide close to zero content to this forum besides your own hauteur and derision. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You're wrong.
You pay for a product or service done by employees not by a rich person. The rich don’t manufacture the goods I’m buying, they don’t provide me with the service, employees do
the rich have been doing this for years, it doesn’t seem to bother you. The average wage corrected by inflation has barely moved over the years while the rich have been taking pretty much all the wealth created by the employees. You think it’s fair?
Someone is salty. You should take your own advice, Nostradamus.
You don't know what is going to happen. There is a changing demographic as the boomers die off.
Your objectivist ship is sinking. Sorry it bothers you others like to talk about it.
the oligarchy is multi-generational and ins utionalized (Congress, Federal judiciary)
the demographic is trending towards non-whiteness, but voting is a charade, essentially just another multi-$B business.
Votes don't count towards getting one's elected legislators to do what you want. They, both parties, react only to the bribes of BigDonor class.
The incoming demographic is pretty famously disenfranchised economically. We'll see if they get bought out.
And votes still matter. They choose who gets elected and primaried. It has to work its way up but the state and local levels are easier to change. There are still federal level candidates interested in changing Citizens United and stock trading by legislators.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)