A Film No Right Winger Will Finish Watching

Anti-Party

Anti-Party

Tea Is The New Kool-Aid

95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%.

The richest people in the world aren't paying their "team" of workers who helped them get there a living wage. In fact, they aren't even spending that money to battle for the "richest" The small brains think that this is ok because ONE person worked hard enough to make $28.2 billion in profit alone, not a world wide team of people. Working hard makes you money, (R)ight?
 
A PBS political film. Geeeee I wonder what that’s all about.

Oh! “Monopoly.” How the rich get richer and the pooooooo get poooooer.

The part the biased film leaves out is the fact that BIG government Duopolies create Monopolies by taxing and regulating small business out of business and leaving Monopoly BIG business, (government’s campaign piggy bank and future jobs program for politicians), in charge of profit margins because they’re the only collectives with the resources and ability to rig subsidies and tax credits with their partners in government and the ability to do business off shore.
 
I don't see why this is so hard for just a Right winger to watch. I would encourage Dem's to watch it too. Considering the fact that when Dems controlled both house and senate, Schumer(D) buried a bill that would end the provision that allowed Hedge Fund Billionaires to get away with a 15% Tax. This is more a film about how money controls politics that help create the inequality gap, and neither party has been immune from accepting their money and helping the richest folks out. It seems to be a pretty informative piece actually, I like it. Even considering that I lean Libertarian and they aren't immune from getting slammed in this either. Damn Koch brothers and their CATO institute. I never could read CATO's crap either.. too damn boring. I have advocated for better schooling in STEM, and believe we need an EPA. Those are probably my two most obvious disagreements I have with the libertarian ticket.
 
DigitalDave said:
I don't see why this is so hard for just a Right winger to watch. I would encourage Dem's to watch it too. Considering the fact that when Dems controlled both house and senate, Schumer(D) buried a bill that would end the provision that allowed Hedge Fund Billionaires to get away with a 15% Tax. This is more a film about how money controls politics that help create the inequality gap, and neither party has been immune from accepting their money and helping the richest folks out. It seems to be a pretty informative piece actually, I like it. Even considering that I lean Libertarian and they aren't immune from getting slammed in this either. Damn Koch brothers and their CATO institute. I never could read CATO's crap either.. too damn boring. I have advocated for better schooling in STEM, and believe we need an EPA. Those are probably my two most obvious disagreements I have with the libertarian ticket.
Click to expand...

CATO is where the logical information is found. Both right and left find that “boring.”

The nation had “better schooling” before the fucking feds got involved in education unconstitutionally. Education is best delivered and controlled at the local level closest to the people.

If the feds need an Environmental Protection Agency, then the people should decide that with a constitutional amendment or the feds need to butt out and leave the environmental rights and abuses thereof to the courts. That’s what the fuck the courts are for instead of deciding street drug crime and horseshit the federal government has no constitutional authority to even be involved in to begin with, like education. If the public’s, or somebody else’s rights to clean air or water or whatever is being violated, let the courts decide punish, and or deliver restitution and law enforcement enforce therewith. We can do without a gang of partisan bureaucrats running around the nation strong-arming the public with mountains of fucking regulations and making laws unconstitutionally, since only the Congress can constitutionally legislate laws, not the asshole bureaucrats or Presidents.
 
Anti-Party said:

95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%.

The richest people in the world aren't paying their "team" of workers who helped them get there a living wage. In fact, they aren't even spending that money to battle for the "richest" The small brains think that this is ok because ONE person worked hard enough to make $28.2 billion in profit alone, not a world wide team of people. Working hard makes you money, (R)ight?
Click to expand...

Well why don't you do what rich people do? That is what people used to do before they could come to the Internets and just complain.

Just curious. You lefties always speak of a living wage implying that there is a wage that is required just to live. Does that mean that conversely that there is a dying wage?
 
Classic Liberal said:
CATO is where the logical information is found. Both right and left find that “boring.”
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, a lot of what's on there is logical, but at the same time, slanted as well. Just as any foundation with an agenda will do, and they are funded by people who would rather enrich themselves without concern of the rest of the population. It's not immune to deception.

Classic Liberal said:
The nation had “better schooling” before the fucking feds got involved in education unconstitutionally. Education is best delivered and controlled at the local level closest to the people.
Click to expand...

This is true. While the Feds issue blanket policies on our schools, they contribute very little in funding compared to what local and state taxes contribute. I think it's in the area of about 7%. I would prefer to just go to my children's school board meetings and ask that they make an investment in the STEM technologies. They are too busy trying to keep up with the blanket the Feds through on top of them. They are doing great in that regard, but there is no Computer Science program for them to take as an elective. All their funding seems to go towards keeping up with the standards. So yes, you are right, we were better off without the Fed's involvement. I think their intention was to bring schools up that were in dilapidated areas, where funding is hard to come by, and instead just brought the better school systems down. I would still say though, that I would try and convince other school systems to invest in STEM, simply because that is where the job market has gone, and one local district might help but in order to fill those jobs, we would need way more than that to fill in the gaps. Does the fed need to get involved? Nah, but they already are, and they are creating more problems rather than helping.

Classic Liberal said:
If the feds need an Environmental Protection Agency, then the people should decide that with a constitutional amendment or the feds need to butt out and leave the environmental rights and abuses thereof to the courts. That’s what the fuck the courts are for instead of deciding street drug crime and horseshit the federal government has no constitutional authority to even be involved in to begin with, like education. If the public’s, or somebody else’s rights to clean air or water or whatever is being violated, let the courts decide punish, and or deliver restitution and law enforcement enforce therewith. We can do without a gang of partisan bureaucrats running around the nation strong-arming the public with mountains of fucking regulations and making laws unconstitutionally, since only the Congress can constitutionally legislate laws, not the asshole bureaucrats or Presidents.
Click to expand...

Being that a spillage in West Virginia could effect many states downstream, you almost need a federal entity to oversee that. That is my case for the EPA. If West Virginia didn't have laws in place to protect the waters, then corporations could just dump all sorts of crap in the waters, and Virginia really can't do much about it. That is where a Federal Regulation makes sense. You can't just dump _____ (insert toxic waste here) into a river. Without that, most states would probably adopt that policy anyways, but other states might not in order to bring business there. Doesn't mean I agree with all that the EPA does, just means I understand there is a need.
 
DigitalDave said:
Don't get me wrong, a lot of what's on there is logical, but at the same time, slanted as well. Just as any foundation with an agenda will do, and they are funded by people who would rather enrich themselves without concern of the rest of the population. It's not immune to deception.
Click to expand...

As long as the “slant” is slanted at the Bill Of rights, I’ll have no problem with CATO.

Without concern? Enriching one’s self is most often a righteous endeavor for the simplest of fact that hardly an enrichment can be accomplished unilaterally and thereby requires the employment of others and in the case of vast enrichment we get vast employment of others. It’s called capitalism, blessed be true capitalism.
 
DigitalDave said:
This is true. While the Feds issue blanket policies on our schools, they contribute very little in funding compared to what local and state taxes contribute. I think it's in the area of about 7%. I would prefer to just go to my children's school board meetings and ask that they make an investment in the STEM technologies. They are too busy trying to keep up with the blanket the Feds through on top of them. They are doing great in that regard, but there is no Computer Science program for them to take as an elective. All their funding seems to go towards keeping up with the standards. So yes, you are right, we were better off without the Fed's involvement. I think their intention was to bring schools up that were in dilapidated areas, where funding is hard to come by, and instead just brought the better school systems down. I would still say though, that I would try and convince other school systems to invest in STEM, simply because that is where the job market has gone, and one local district might help but in order to fill those jobs, we would need way more than that to fill in the gaps. Does the fed need to get involved? Nah, but they already are, and they are creating more problems rather than helping.
Click to expand...

If States have the constitutional right to tax for public schools, the public should always have the right of school choice.

Better schools, better Pizza, Papa-Freedom!
 
DigitalDave said:
Being that a spillage in West Virginia could effect many states downstream, you almost need a federal entity to oversee that. That is my case for the EPA.
Click to expand...

What’s the problem with the federal courts handling multi-State issues? Isn’t that what they’re for?

What we have with the EPA is just another of Richard Nixon’s BIG fucking government ideas whereby a gang of unelected bureaucrats go around the country enforcing laws/regulations they write in total contempt of the constitutional legislative powers defined by the Constitution. IMO, they’re a radical gang of power-mad dictatorial bastards harassing national productivity.

Aside from that I opine they’re unconstitutional to begin with. I find no enumerated authority in the Constitution for the EPA to even exist without a constitutional amendment.

If West Virginia didn't have laws in place to protect the waters, then corporations could just dump all sorts of crap in the waters, and Virginia really can't do much about it. That is where a Federal Regulation makes sense.
Click to expand...

A federal regulation may well make sense, but the power to legislate law, i. e. “regulation” constitutionally belongs to the Congress not some gang of unelected BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucrats. Let’s let and demand that Congress do their job and send the radical bastards of the EPA back to the unemployment lines where maybe the Sierra Club will find something for them to do.

You can't just dump _____ (insert toxic waste here) into a river. Without that, most states would probably adopt that policy anyways, but other states might not in order to bring business there. Doesn't mean I agree with all that the EPA does, just means I understand there is a need.
Click to expand...

Where you “see a need,” I see pathetic BIG GOVERNMENT redundancy and bastardizing violation of the separation of powers. The EPA in effect usurps the powers of Congress and hands them over to the Executive and his gang of ideological wonks without debate. It’s an abomination of constitutional righteousness.
 
Let us not forget that aside from Watergate His Highness King Richard, (Tricky Dick) Nixon, gave us the violent pathetic failed Drug War and the Bureaucrat Authoritarian BIG Government Dictatorial EPA with all of its henchmen and ideological freaks.

Republican "Limited Government" is like the compassion of Attila-The-Hun.
 
DigitalDave said:
I don't see why this is so hard for just a Right winger to watch. I would encourage Dem's to watch it too. Considering the fact that when Dems controlled both house and senate, Schumer(D) buried a bill that would end the provision that allowed Hedge Fund Billionaires to get away with a 15% Tax. This is more a film about how money controls politics that help create the inequality gap, and neither party has been immune from accepting their money and helping the richest folks out. It seems to be a pretty informative piece actually, I like it. Even considering that I lean Libertarian and they aren't immune from getting slammed in this either. Damn Koch brothers and their CATO institute. I never could read CATO's crap either.. too damn boring. I have advocated for better schooling in STEM, and believe we need an EPA. Those are probably my two most obvious disagreements I have with the libertarian ticket.
Click to expand...

You are new to the forums that I have seen. I was using the terms needed to provoke the most views possible.
 
Teflon Don said:
Well why don't you do what rich people do? That is what people used to do before they could come to the Internets and just complain.

Just curious. You lefties always speak of a living wage implying that there is a wage that is required just to live. Does that mean that conversely that there is a dying wage?
Click to expand...

Well I'm a Christian kiddo.

I don't believe in the worship of money.
 
Classic Liberal said:
If States have the constitutional right to tax for public schools, the public should always have the right of school choice.

Better schools, better Pizza, Papa-Freedom!
Click to expand...

Yea....School choice is why some aren't educated........(this is uneducated but I digress)

Yet you belong to a party that thinks private schools will educate better. I'm sure, if you are like me, you will have a great school choice.

But I KNOW you don't educate yourself on the problems of society or educate yourself on how to fix them so I know you haven't thought about the worst neighborhoods. In your theory their school is not public anymore, it's GONE. No more school for what is profiled to be the most violent people in America when "education" is said to be the biggest violence stopper in America.

Kid, Maybe you should have a thought process instead of being a parrot that repeats what they are told to repeat like a party platform political bias moron.
 
Anti-Party said:
You are new to the forums that I have seen. I was using the terms needed to provoke the most views possible.
Click to expand...

Nah, not new, just on hiatus... lol. I got frustrated trying to keep up with all the bitching when I just wanted good debate. Think I left when there was almost absolutely no discussion of topics going on, and I got bored. I did get caught up in it a bit then too, was, and still am, a goof. Though if you want to get a lot of views, all you gotta say is 'DigitalDave is a sexy beast'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top