It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is why I hate socialists

page: 8
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

How does "more inclusive" (a term that means "more open" in most people's minds) come out as you hearing "compelled to take part in."

Forcing somebody to participate in something is sort of the antithesis of being inclusive.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ketsuko

How does "more inclusive" (a term that means "more open" in most people's minds) come out as you hearing "compelled to take part in."

Forcing somebody to participate in something is sort of the antithesis of being inclusive.


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.

That means if I'm not already on the hook for it, I soon will be because its role will be expanded.

You know ... Medicare for all!

Stuff like that. Do you really think with "Medicare for all" that you or I will be asked if we want it or would prefer to stay with something else if we examine the terms and decide it's not for us? Were we asked about Obamacare?

Are we being asked about anything they're doing with the taxes right now?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Socialism cannot be a social construct; it's an ideology.

I think the OP hates Sanders. He's a rather poor example of a socialist when he's proven time and time again, that he does not give a flying duck about the middle working class, and is more interested in accumulating wealth for himself and his family.


Care to explain that assertion, when he is one of the few senators actually still fighting for working and middle class? While most Democrats and Republicans have moved right wing and support neo-liberal, pro rich economics?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
OKin all seriousness(I have to keep telling myself that ;D ) there's a great deal of socialism in society today. I don't mean just welfare and the like but any collective need. From garbage collection to defense. It's all paid for by the collective. Now the abuse of that collective money is an issue.


Just because it exists doesn't mean I don't have an obligation to minimize it's impact on myself, my family and my friends.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

In the sense of being on the hook for it? Of course. But then taxpayers are already on the hook for all sorts of things, many of which this group or that group doesn't agree with paying for.

As for being forced to actually participate in the program itself? No, I don't see that.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If you are a socialist, do you think you have a right to what I earn as you need it for yourself?


Did I say I was a socialist? Strawman. No thanks, Ket. Not today. Besides you and I have been having this argument for years. I know how you feel. I don't need to hear it all again.

You have a nice weekend.

btw, I'm not a socialist. I was simply inquiring as to the use of the word 'hate'. Hatred is a strong emotion these days and it's gaining momentum.
I would like to see it stop.


I didn't say you were.

That's is why I asked. Generally, the Marxist thing is from each according to his ability (what I work hard to earn) to each according to his need (you take as you need it). That is how basic socialism works.

All socialist programs are built off that. They take from those who earn to give to those deemed needy in some way.

In order to believe in socialism, you have to believe you have the right to what I earn as you need it.


I get the critiques, but one major issue many conservatives don't get is that the very wealthy have taken virtually all of the gains in gdp/capita since the 70's, while everyone else's real wages have stagnated. They haven't "earned" all of that, I'm sorry. When people steal or appropriate most of the dividends from the economy, including from labor, it's not "stealing their hard earned money" when people want to examine it. You guys need to go back a step to whether the money is being taken fairly in the first place, only THEN can we talk about whether further redistribution steps (ranging from taxes to social programs) are reasonable or not. Basically conservatives always only focus on the second step instead of the first.

Note that I am not even talking about middle class or basic professional class folks. Those are not the ones extracting all the wealth.
edit on 2-12-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ketsuko

In the sense of being on the hook for it? Of course. But then taxpayers are already on the hook for all sorts of things, many of which this group or that group doesn't agree with paying for.

As for being forced to actually participate in the program itself? No, I don't see that.


Oh, so you aren't forced to participate in Social Security?

And if they make our health care system "Medicare for all," you won't be forced to participate in that one too?

Just like you aren't forced to participate in public schooling, even if you don't have kids, even if you do have kids but send them to a private school or homeschool?

The bigger and more they "include" everyone and everything into a program, the more likely it is you will be forced to participate in it in some way. And when those programs start to bloat their budget through corruption and not serve the needs of those they are ostensibly for and we're all locked into a death spiral of paying for them anyhow ... thanks socialism and "inclusion."

edit on 2-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



It is.

Everything today must be made more inclusive.


We have to exclude all kinds of things so everyone feels included by that somehow.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If you are a socialist, do you think you have a right to what I earn as you need it for yourself?


Did I say I was a socialist? Strawman. No thanks, Ket. Not today. Besides you and I have been having this argument for years. I know how you feel. I don't need to hear it all again.

You have a nice weekend.

btw, I'm not a socialist. I was simply inquiring as to the use of the word 'hate'. Hatred is a strong emotion these days and it's gaining momentum.
I would like to see it stop.


Modern politics is fueled on Hate.

If the two sides didn't waste so much energy hating each other, the people would never allow these politicians to get away with what they do.

People like the OP are part of the problem. MOST of the people on ATS are part of the problem. (I mean, it's most people EVERYWHERE but especially on sites like ATS.)

The political machine has deranged the U.S. population to the point that people are voting because they HATE the people they argue with on the internet, rather than because of actual policy impact.

(This particular OP is probably just for driving traffic, which is somehow even more ridiculous).
edit on 2-12-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

All right, Lady wont' give an answer, so I will ask you.

Do you think you have a right to take what I earn as you think you need it for yourself?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



It is.

Everything today must be made more inclusive.


We have to exclude all kinds of things so everyone feels included by that somehow.


No it's not! I made it up right after Trump made up "Prime the Pump".



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's somewhat cathartic to rage and rail against socialism, but the assholes in congress (and I mean dems and republicans) want their power.

It's going to happen. Too many weak people want government to take care of them, cradle to grave.

It's pathetic. But I'm old. So maybe I'll luck out and be dead before they ruin the nation.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dudemo5

All right, Lady wont' give an answer, so I will ask you.

Do you think you have a right to take what I earn as you think you need it for yourself?


I make plenty of money. I don't need yours.

I do think as a society we have a right to decide as a group how much we will be taxed and what those tax dollars will be used for. That goes for roads, bridges, police departments, fire departments, basic infrastructure, and so forth. Most people agree.

Where we disagree is on the details. And in a Democracy (or Democratic republic) voting is the way we sort that out.

You know, some of us aren't voting because of what WE need. We are voting because of the various challenges facing our society and what we believe to be the most effective way to handle those problems.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



Inclusive has a strong negative connotation to many. I wouldn't waste my time trying to salvage this word.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Of course as far as ideology goes, I have actually spoken with a lot of Bernie people (self described Democratic Socialists) that had some pretty great ideas. The real problem is when you get into implementation, and how you rely on checks and balances to prevent another 1% from assuming wealth and power. If only we had some super-ethical and sentient machines


Ah, so you were one of those rebel voters, who wanted the status quo taken down to the ground! Sometimes I think I might be too cautious, but nevertheless feel justified in my rejection of Trump, and his west wing full of his family and billionaires. That's completely irksome to me.

I adored Sanders but couldn't quite bring myself to vote for him mainly because of the "free university" thing.
There would have been no way we could pay for that. At the moment, things are going back to "education is for the rich", like it used to be, and there seems to be no way around it at the moment. Bring on the super-ethical and sentient machines! We'd be better off.

It's good seeing you around lately. You bring a sort of dignity and validation to the table.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



Inclusive has a strong negative connotation to many. I wouldn't waste my time trying to salvage this word.


And the 'many" it has a 'negative connotation" to, are those I typically have no use for. It's only in your mind. Trying to make something bad out of something good. That. Is. All.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone here ever had your taxes go down?

Asking for a friend.



No, but my taxes in Illinois just went up.

Because they were short some dough. So they hiked up our taxes.

And in two more years, they'll say "we spent too much!," and my taxes will go up - again.

And I live a good two hours from Cook County.


The democrats ruined that state, glad I got out when I did.


Uh... Billionaire Bruce is a Republican?


To be fair, he's been governor for what, two years?

It's not like Illinois' problems suddenly cropped up since he took office.


And my taxes went up.

Because of the current governor.

I was discussing this, not the myriad of other problems in Illinois.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: ketsuko


Inclusive is a political buzzword. They use it because it sounds good, but it really means more expansive meaning larger and more bloated when it come to government programs like the ones described.


I actually sort of resent this comment. It's NOT a buzzword, but it will be, I might make it one if I can. And I am not a "they".
I am just me talkin' the talk and walking the walk I always have.

Pfft.



Inclusive has a strong negative connotation to many. I wouldn't waste my time trying to salvage this word.


And the 'many" it has a 'negative connotation" to, are those I typically have no use for. It's only in your mind. Trying to make something bad out of something good. That. Is. All.


Connotations are all in the mind by definition.

Inclusive tends to mean excluding whites and especially white males. If you aren't a white male maybe you are just oblivious to this fact.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dudemo5

All right, Lady wont' give an answer, so I will ask you.

Do you think you have a right to take what I earn as you think you need it for yourself?


I answered you! Stop janking me around, I am trying to leave this thread and you keep bring me back with this solicitous mess.

I said no, but to qualify that, I will say "I might". How about that?
If I saw a starving family, and I could get Bill Gates to pay to feed them, I would. I wouldn't ask you to, because I am unsure of your financial status.

So there.




top topics



 
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join