McCain is the R's best choice.

Socrtease said:
He actually said this!?! Holy shit are there NO REPUBLICANS that believe in unhampered free speech? The first amendment has become corrupt? Fuck that guy I think the melenoma has become a brainenoma.
Click to expand...

I don't trust quotes with "..." required to complete the sentence. I would like to see what he said in full before I would believe any politician would be that stupid, even if it does turn out he really believes that.
 
Onceler said:
Who cares?

Again, this is a complete right-wing MYTH. What you call 'class warfare' is simply people (most of them, anyway) advocating ways to bring lower classes UP, not bring the rich down.

... .
Click to expand...

If that were true, how do you explain unions?
 
Please---name one instance in history where class warfare has resulted in the lower classes being brought up rather than the rich and middle-class brought down...

I'll let you think about it, then admit how stupid you are.

EDIT: Here's a hint: class warfare in its purest form (Marxism) never results in anything other than the entire country being reduced to near-poverty, rather than the poor being raised to a decent standard of living.
 
Onceler said:
Who cares?

Again, this is a complete right-wing MYTH. What you call 'class warfare' is simply people (most of them, anyway) advocating ways to bring lower classes UP, not bring the rich down.

There is nothing hypocrtical about Edwards being rich. We're doing the country a great disservice if we suddenly exempt the wealthy from talking about poverty & middle class issues. Since most of our reps are wealthy, it would certainly limit help for those problems.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, since you obviously did not read my last response to this nonsense.... you are wrong.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow.

So you are NOT talking about just improving the lives of the lower and middle class. You are talking about narrowing the income gap. Which can ONLY happen as stated above. AS I said, you can improve the middle and lower class and STILL have the income gap widen.

I did not say Edwards is hypocritical for BEING rich. I said he is hypocritical if he did nothing to "narrow the income gap" when it actually affected HIM. You effort is simply to create a strawman. It is one thing to talk about helping those in poverty and another entirely to talk about narrowing the income gap. One is saying we want everyone to succeed, the other is saying the wealthy are not entitled to gain the same percentage as those in the lower and middle income levels. That is class warfare.
 
Superfreak said:
AGAIN, since you obviously did not read my last response to this nonsense.... you are wrong.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow.

So you are NOT talking about just improving the lives of the lower and middle class. You are talking about narrowing the income gap. Which can ONLY happen as stated above. AS I said, you can improve the middle and lower class and STILL have the income gap widen.

I did not say Edwards is hypocritical for BEING rich. I said he is hypocritical if he did nothing to "narrow the income gap" when it actually affected HIM. You effort is simply to create a strawman. It is one thing to talk about helping those in poverty and another entirely to talk about narrowing the income gap. One is saying we want everyone to succeed, the other is saying the wealthy are not entitled to gain the same percentage as those in the lower and middle income levels. That is class warfare.
Click to expand...

No matter what he is talking about, the result is the same. Bringing the rich down to be as poor as the lower class is the only way to achieve class "equality"...even if you (and the record for Marxists being peaceful isn't good) managed to actually focus on increasing the standard of living for the lower class while not targeting the middle and upper class, the amount of capital it would require would make everyone's wages worthless.
 
"THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow."


Ever hear of "education"?
 
Onceler said:
"THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow."


Ever hear of "education"?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of inflation?
 
Onceler said:
"THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow."

...
Click to expand...
f you believe this than you must belive that there is a limit to how much wealth can be produced and aquired.
 
gonzojournals said:
Please---name one instance in history where class warfare has resulted in the lower classes being brought up rather than the rich and middle-class brought down...

I'll let you think about it, then admit how stupid you are.

EDIT: Here's a hint: class warfare in its purest form (Marxism) never results in anything other than the entire country being reduced to near-poverty, rather than the poor being raised to a decent standard of living.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you come in on a thread late. If you took some time, you'd know that I don't consider what SF is referring to as "class warfare."

Can someone advocate for the middle class without inciting class warfare?

I'll let you think about that for a little bit...
 
WRL said:
He has ran a six letter campaign, C H A N G E, event over, go home. Bells whistles, horns...
Click to expand...


Obama is a fraud from the get go...so is Hillary they will say anything in order to get elected...they change positions as the 'Eastwardly' wind sends ships to Europe...in the oldie days of course...:D
 
Onceler said:
This is what happens when you come in on a thread late. If you took some time, you'd know that I don't consider what SF is referring to as "class warfare."

Can someone advocate for the middle class without inciting class warfare?

I'll let you think about that for a little bit...
Click to expand...

The way to advocate for the middle class is to leave the middle class alone (or help the rich). Everytime you try to hurt the rich, you end up targeting the middle class as well...and everytime you help the rich, you help the middle class as well (which actually does help the middle class).
 
Onceler said:
"THE ONLY WAY FOR THE INCOME GAP TO NARROW IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WEALTHY MAKE A LOWER PERCENTAGE GAIN THAN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. or you could say they have to have greater losses than the lower and middle class.

That is the ONLY way the gap can narrow."


Ever hear of "education"?
Click to expand...

Yes, education is the key to helping people get out of poverty. But a higher education does not equate to narrowing the gap. Why? Because AGAIN.... the bulk of the gains in total income for the wealthy are from investments, not wages. Thus, in periods like March 2000- March 2003, the income gap will tend to narrow as the markets get hammered. In periods like March 2003- end of 2006, the wealthy are going to far outpace gains by the lower and middle classes as the markets run up.

A higher education will help narrow the wage gap, but not the income gap.... and it is the income gap that class warfare propaganidist like John Edwards are hyping.
 
Onceler said:
This is what happens when you come in on a thread late. If you took some time, you'd know that I don't consider what SF is referring to as "class warfare."

Can someone advocate for the middle class without inciting class warfare?

I'll let you think about that for a little bit...
Click to expand...

As I said, yes, you can. But the John Edwards income gap is not just about the middle or lower class. Is it?
 
Tell me lorax... is Edwards going around saying.... lets get a better education, thus being able to demand higher wages, start saving and investing so that you too can take part in the gains of the market....

Or is he saying... we have to take the power from the evil corporations who are hoarding the wealth, taking back from the ultra rich who have held you back with their greed...
 
gonzojournals said:
No matter what he is talking about, the result is the same. Bringing the rich down to be as poor as the lower class is the only way to achieve class "equality"...even if you (and the record for Marxists being peaceful isn't good) managed to actually focus on increasing the standard of living for the lower class while not targeting the middle and upper class, the amount of capital it would require would make everyone's wages worthless.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Why not make minimum wage $300/hour and I do support minimum wage laws just not ludicrous ones.
 
Southern Man said:
f you believe this than you must belive that there is a limit to how much wealth can be produced and aquired.
Click to expand...

Read what it says again. Do try to comprehend it. It says the wealthy's PERCENTAGE GAIN has to be lower than that of the middle and lower class for the income gap to narrow. That doesn't mean new wealth cannot be produced/acquired.
 
Superfreak said:
Read what it says again. Do try to comprehend it. It says the wealthy's PERCENTAGE GAIN has to be lower than that of the middle and lower class for the income gap to narrow. That doesn't mean new wealth cannot be produced/acquired.
Click to expand...
But that's the obvious conclusion. :)
 
Socrtease said:
EXACTLY! Why not make minimum wage $300/hour and I do support minimum wage laws just not ludicrous ones.
Click to expand...

I support minimum wage laws as well...there is no question that the government must look out for the worker, for the corporations (though I love them) will not if left to their own devices.

That is why I follow the third path between the capitalists and the socialists.
 
gonzojournals said:
I support minimum wage laws as well...there is no question that the government must look out for the worker, for the corporations (though I love them) will not if left to their own devices.

That is why I follow the third path between the capitalists and the socialists.
Click to expand...
That would be the path I call pragmatism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top