What the left believes versus what the right believes

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: proximo

Can you give an example of a modern purely capitalist economy that is successful?

The United States.

Now I suppose you are going to tell me it is not purely capitalist - and that is probably true.

I don't think pure capitalism is for the best. I am for some government regulations - but they should be very limited.

There needs to be checks and balances for every system - as our founders knew. Why? Again because people are selfish and power corrupts, power does need to be distributed to keep any one group from getting out of control.

Agreed.
With pure Capitalism, man oppresses man, with Communism, it is the other way around.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: dfnj2015

You lost me on the first two sentences. After three years of being called a racist, nazi, bigot, whatever-phobe, hater, warmonger, deplorable just because I am conservative you lost that argument before you ever started. Then a few lines later you refer to conservatives as "Trump cultists". Hypocrite.

I want closed borders with sensible immigration policy, I want the attacks on our Constitution to end, I want career politicians(criminals) to be held accountable for their crimes, I want an end to sanctuary cities, I want an end to all this nonsense about socialism being the answer, and I want democrats to do something with their time other than try to disrupt and ultimately remove a sitting POTUS just because they are sore losers.

This. So. Much. This.

originally posted by: iMnotHigh
Rofls...dude the Left Constantly labeled anyone that supported Trump.

I was mostly a Democrat, and just thought Trump was a better Candidate than Hillary.

And you #ed up sick #ty people, called me a Nazi, Rapist, Racist, and other #ty words.

So # you, and # all the Liberals, you people started this bull#.

Truth.

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

No Fox News and other conservative propaganda sites told you “the left” was calling you a Nazi. Then showed you random videos of usually random nobodies, but regardless people who were never champions or spokesmen of “the left” saying stupid things, and say “see the boogie man is out to get you!
!!”



For example...


Lena Dunham nor Ana Sarkasian were never spokesmen for “the left”..conservative media made them famous with hit pieces.. the left did not make them famous with hero pieces..

a reply to: dfnj2015

You try to project this opened mindedness coming from a place of reason and logic. You probably dont even recognize your intentional jabs at the Right even as being such. You, on the left, want to regulate things to your preference... and you will try to pretend (maybe you even believe) it comes from a place of intellectual superiority. You seem to suggest that the vast majority of wealth resides on the right. There is no tolerance for ideas that differ from your own, I must be a bad person or just a stupid person if I dont agree with your reasoning and pseudo truths.


I think you should join a commune or a Eutopian type society... dont start your own, join someone else's. I expect that you would quickly begin to understand where the right comes from, but it would depend on your actual intelligence as to how quick you gained understanding.


I am sure that you have grandiose ideas of a perfect society, but until you gain understanding of your own self serving societal drive, you will find a way to blame that which you dont understand

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Also....

What is up with all the victim pity parties...


“Oh somebody called me a name!! “


I watch conservatives give speeches about snowflakes.. then snowflake in exactly the same sentence..

a reply to: dfnj2015
All forms of government are corrupt. The government should operate as close to anarchy as possible. The strength of our country comes from our citizens, not our government.

The economic efficiency of government vs. private corporations favors the private corporations every time in every single industry. Even space and military.

The people in government control the single largest entity on the planet. They often get drunk on more power they could ever have earn in the private sector. That unearned power is what leads to corruption foremost.

Economic inequality isn't a bad thing, unless you're the type who likes to keep up with the Jones's. Our government should treat us as equals under the law, not make us economic equals. Reality is that not everybody is equal. Some people are more intelligent, more educated, or a harder worker, etc. We shouldn't use the government to force us to be economically equal.

Government programs like Section 8 provide dependency. We are to the point where these programs do more harm than good. Once someone becomes dependent on these subsidies they rarely become independent and free ever again.

The most unrelatable thoughts I have with liberals is that they seem to have given up on the idea they can ever become wealthy, or even moderately successful themselves. I was raised in lower middle class but have done well so far, and my future prospects look good. I want to reap the benefits of risking it all on myself, or else why would put I put it on the line?

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Also....

What is up with all the victim pity parties...


“Oh somebody called me a name!! “


I watch conservatives give speeches about snowflakes.. then snowflake in exactly the same sentence..

I was referring to the sore loser part. I don’t care what names people call me. They can’t call me a sore loser

a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn’t make the claim nore did I say it was wrong, I asked for proof, aren’t you supposed to be able to back a claim with proof?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: dfnj2015

You try to project this opened mindedness coming from a place of reason and logic. You probably dont even recognize your intentional jabs at the Right even as being such. You, on the left, want to regulate things to your preference... and you will try to pretend (maybe you even believe) it comes from a place of intellectual superiority. You seem to suggest that the vast majority of wealth resides on the right. There is no tolerance for ideas that differ from your own, I must be a bad person or just a stupid person if I dont agree with your reasoning and pseudo truths.


I think you should join a commune or a Eutopian type society... dont start your own, join someone else's. I expect that you would quickly begin to understand where the right comes from, but it would depend on your actual intelligence as to how quick you gained understanding.


I am sure that you have grandiose ideas of a perfect society, but until you gain understanding of your own self serving societal drive, you will find a way to blame that which you dont understand

Of course the vast majority of wealth resides on the right. The actual right, not necessarily the us right. The right is the party of oligarchy and deregulation. The reason they so push the “free market” is because the free market is completely vulnerable to manipulation from oligarchy and monopoly.

Further you act like the left has no clue of human nature, like human nature is all based upon greed. Rand has no real clue about human nature. It presents the darkest side of our nature as the only side and then extols that side as a virtue. All you need to see the fallacy is to look at the collapse of American society and culture as it’s been working on the assumption of greed being the prime virtue for some time now. Not working out so well.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: dfnj2015
All forms of government are corrupt. The government should operate as close to anarchy as possible. The strength of our country comes from our citizens, not our government.

The economic efficiency of government vs. private corporations favors the private corporations every time in every single industry. Even space and military.

The people in government control the single largest entity on the planet. They often get drunk on more power they could ever have earn in the private sector. That unearned power is what leads to corruption foremost.

Economic inequality isn't a bad thing, unless you're the type who likes to keep up with the Jones's. Our government should treat us as equals under the law, not make us economic equals. Reality is that not everybody is equal. Some people are more intelligent, more educated, or a harder worker, etc. We shouldn't use the government to force us to be economically equal.

Government programs like Section 8 provide dependency. We are to the point where these programs do more harm than good. Once someone becomes dependent on these subsidies they rarely become independent and free ever again.

The most unrelatable thoughts I have with liberals is that they seem to have given up on the idea they can ever become wealthy, or even moderately successful themselves. I was raised in lower middle class but have done well so far, and my future prospects look good. I want to reap the benefits of risking it all on myself, or else why would put I put it on the line?

Several points. First off, there is no evidence, anywhere, that public is more or less efficient than private. Period. This is an oft repeated fallacy, with no evidential backing.

Second, you act as though the left works upon myths that we are all equal. The fact is the greatest myth is one you portray here, which is never addressed. The myth of the American meritocracy. Ability is the last and smallest of the pillars of success. It’s largely based upon luck, nepotism, wealth, and luck. Trump is an excellent example, how someone with no real ability can become anything with enough money.

And lastly your assumption that liberals are all unsuccessful people lamenting their unsuccess. Perhaps a leftist is really just a person who has never gotten over their anger at the fact that the vast majority of humans life lives of unending toil and misery. Doesn’t mean our lives are toil and misery, just that we can look around the world, recognize the truth, and not block it out or ignore it.

a reply to: Gorgonite

The “right” of today agree with literally anything Trump does regardless of their values.

Absolutely, 100% false, and the main reason why people like you are not taken seriously.

I am apparently a part of the "right" (despite being an Independent and often called a "liberal" in my youth) and I do question Trump's policies. When he called for a wall, I questioned whether a wall was a good idea... didn't take long because I have been calling for it to be built since the 1980s! When Trump called for a tax cut, I questioned it... for about 10 milliseconds. The previous tax burden was unfair and was hurting the economy, something I have been saying for at least the past decade! When Trump said he wanted to go to Mars, I questioned it... for maybe 10 milliseconds again, because that is something I have been waiting to see my entire life!

Now, when he said we were pulling out of Syria... I am still questioning that. When he talked about signing red flag laws, I didn't just question it... I yelled to High Heaven! Thankfully, Trump seems to have backed off that.

The reason I support Trump is not because he is Donald Trump. It's because he supports many of the same policies I do and have for a long, long time. You just don't get that. Not everyone agrees with you. You are not some god of public opinion, and your opinion carries no more weight than mine. Get off that arrogant high horse of yours and get back down to earth if you want anyone to take you seriously, because right now... sorry, but everything you say I consider a bad joke in poor taste.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pexx421

Words also change meanings over time. A "faggot" is a flaming torch such as those depicted in the movies used by cave explorers... but I doubt anyone hearing that term today immediately thinks of a torch. At one time it also meant a cigarette. "Cool" means having a low temperature... but in my day it meant something good and wanted. If it was a cold night outside, a roaring fire in the fireplace was cool.

Those we are railing against in this thread have changed your outdated definition of socialism.

At one time, yes, socialism meant that the workers owned the means of production. I'm not real sure how that would work well, as that means to get an office job one would need to provide their own office complete with computer and copier and all the little extra toys that go along with it. Only the wealthy could get a job if they were required to own the means of production first... others would be relegated to maybe digging ditches if they could afford a shovel... no, wait, where would they dig the ditch? They'd have to own land to dig the ditch on, too.

Today, however, socialism has changed its meaning to being a system where government regulates everything about everyone's lives, in exchange for social aid programs for everyone except the very few.

If you want the term to mean what it once meant, you'll need to shut Bernie Sanders , AOC, the Squad, and Nancy Pelosi up. They're hijacking your terminology.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JustJohnny

what has he really done that everyone agrees with????

You can’t expect for liberals to congratulate him for passing some conservative policy that only conservatives like..

I don't see why not? Everyone was expected to agree with anything proposed by Barack Obama.

There has never been, and there will never be, a President whose policies everyone agrees with. It just can't happen. A law that makes the worker's lives easier will cost employers, so the employers will be against it. A law that gives employers power will be opposed by the workers who will be the target of that power. The entire premise of capitalism is that everyone operates in a competitive society... and that means everyone will have different self-interests.

As long as those different self-interests are balanced, it works fine. That's the role of government, and the only role of government: ensure fairness in competition. If a can of beans says it has 16 ounces in it, by damn, it better have 16 ounces in it or yes, someone should be prosecuted for false advertising. If it says it contains no peanut products and someone gets sick eating it because they are allergic to peanuts, hell, yeah... go after the bums!

The problem comes in when I have to pay extra for peanut butter, or can't even buy peanut butter, because some people are allergic to peanuts. Then I have a problem. Yet, this same basic idea is promoted all across the country. If I want to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, too damn bad... even if the bar owner wants to allow smoking, even if everyone in the bar is a smoker, the government says I can't have a smoke unless I go stand outside i the cold rain. In California, there are some cities where one can't even smoke in their own home!

And there are some people who agree with this, as ridiculous as it sounds to me. Some are in positions of power, and I get to abide by their decrees whether they make good sense to me or not.

Time about is fair play. You guys got 8 years of Obama making people like me miserable. Don't go whining now about how the current policies are reversing that trend. Our turn; sit down, shut up, and live with it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Variable2027
a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn’t make the claim nore did I say it was wrong, I asked for proof, aren’t you supposed to be able to back a claim with proof?

Absolutely. My post to you was mistaken in tone and content. Sorry about that; thanks for the correction.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The term socialism as you've just defined it is a bit of a limited pejorative use, wouldn't you say? Particularly among certain political factions?

The US has a mixed economy (as do most modern nations) in which pure market forces are counterbalanced by government intervention.

Sanders talks about democratic socialism: Here's how he defined that in a recent speech:

Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment. We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism.

Source

Similarly, AOC:

Ocasio-Cortez has likened her view of democratic socialism to Scandinavian social democracy. The congresswoman's progressive platform consists of a single-payer health care system that covers all forms of health care.

"We're talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful in many different models, from Finland to Canada to the UK,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is still paying off her student loans, also believes in tuition-free public colleges and universities. Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains "basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That's what democratic socialism means in 2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”

Source

These policies are far more in line with social welfare than with classical socialism, and social welfare as an economic force has been a part of the United States since the 1930s.

The actual Democratic Socialists of America platform is found at the link on their name.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

The economic efficiency of government vs. private corporations favors the private corporations every time in every single industry.

Let's examine why this is.

If I am a tomato grower and I grow tomatoes for a living as a private tomato grower, I have to grow tomatoes that you want to buy, or I have to convince you to otherwise buy my tomatoes.

There are several ways I could do this. I could put a lot of time and effort into making sure my tomatoes are the very best. Maybe I'm growing and developing the largest, juiciest, most flavorful tomatoes on the market. I could be putting time and effort into growing the most unique tomatoes, so maybe I'm the one developing all the different heirloom strains -- tomatoes that are different colors or have slightly different sizes and/or flavor profiles. Or I could simply be best at making you think my tomatoes are awesome by using clever marketing. Ever hear of Super Tomatohead? Oh ... you will.

Any or a combo of all of these are ways private businesses try to convince you that your $5 are best spent on their tomatoes and not somebody else's tomatoes. But the one thing no private company can do is take that $5 out of your pocket by force. You have to make the decision to pick up some tomatoes and hand it over to them.

Buyer/seller agreement. So whatever money any private company has is there solely because a bunch of consumers decided they liked those tomatoes for whatever reason and chose to buy them. If they run out, they go out of business.

When the government gets into the tomato game, they can simply write laws that force consumers to hand over that $5 no choice involved. The government doesn't have to worry about the quantity or quality of their tomatoes in the market ... ever. They know that if they run out of money, they can simply take more from the people one way or another. Government tomato farms don't even have to supply enough tomatoes and they *still* won't go out of business because there is always more money from the government for them to keep failing, and people cannot stop paying into those tomato farms no matter what.

It's an endless supply of money for the corrupt, and they don't have to worry about producing anything of quality in return. There is no way they ever go out of business, too.

Any examples of a modern national economy that is both successful and based enitrely on capitalism?

a reply to: JustJohnny

You're right. They're likely white males and shouldn't get an opinion.

That's what this city board member informed her colleagues before a vote.

Arguing to adopt a new equity statement for the city of Oak Park, Buchanan lost her marbles and started telling the white men on the board they have no right to an opinion.

"I don't want to hear what you have to say!" she yelled. "Why do you have an opinion on equity? You have been white from birth...why are you arguing 'what is a system of oppression?' You've never experienced one. Just stop Dan. Stop Dino. You are not oppressed...You stop it. You are a white male."

Then she turned to a non-white male of Middle Eastern descent, Mayor Anan Abu-Taleb and said, "Your skin is white enough."

This sort of thinking is wrapping itself into our governance structures and schools and affecting us. These are the people calling us names because we don't "sit down and shut up" while they make the world a better place by canceling us.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: dfnj2015

You try to project this opened mindedness coming from a place of reason and logic. You probably dont even recognize your intentional jabs at the Right even as being such.

Maybe I misunderestimated the right's ability to actually read what I actually wrote, "I tried to do this a little more fairly but it is impossible for me not to be a little derogatory of the right."