INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Jesse on December 14, 2018, 12:49:51 PM
-
Compare. Add your own
Liberal places tend to be more affluent, expensive yet generous with their social safety net. High taxes though, High cost of living.
Conservative places tend to be more behind the times, religious and more affordable with lower taxes and no real good social safety nets other than churches
Living in Northern California, there was both. The inner farm land areas were all Republican and the coast was all Democratic, big cities tend to be Liberal. Rual areas tend to be Conservative, as much as I hate to say this Is rather live in a Conservative area because the cost of living is better. It's a trade off I'd rather not have to make because I'm probably more socially liberal but it always comes down to money. The parties seem to be no different
It's interesting how political parties basically effect our everyday lives regardless if we like it or not, we need political free zones! :laugh:
:orly:
I think a basic inforstructor and government is needed however too far left of the issue and too far right always seems to rule the very middle that we all need. :fish2:
-
Grew up in a blue liberal town in upstate NY. People had more $$, things cost much more, they where better educated... more laid back, less religious in the over zealous sense, less judgmental...
Now I live in a conservative red zone near WV. Everything is the complete opposite. The only good thing is affordability.
-
...another thing I've noticed is that domestic violence seems more prevalent and overlooked among the religious conservatives.
-
My state skews blue in most elections, as far as I understand this stuff.
Not too many fundie Christians here either. And I have affordable housing. :orly:
-
Locations with higher cost of living generally also have higher wages. My state is a swing state, and the city ranks well for ratios of average housing cost to average annual incomes.
-
As far as I can make it, it is opposite here. Liberals (Conservative) represent the Middle Class and Labour (Liberal) represents the working class.
In truth there is not THAT much polarisation and Labour is not hard Left but fairly moderate and Liberals are Centre Right
I think they are both shit and the Greens are worse.
-
Grew up in a blue liberal town in upstate NY.
Didn't know there WERE such. Upstate seemed an ocean of conservatism.
Western NY, on the other hand, had a couple liberal cities, but the towns were still pretty conservative.
-
Grew up in a blue liberal town in upstate NY.
Didn't know there WERE such. Upstate seemed an ocean of conservatism.
Western NY, on the other hand, had a couple liberal cities, but the towns were still pretty conservative.
Considered part of upstate, but rather western I guess...I grew up close to Geneseo.
Canning factory was 75% staffed by Mexican immigrants that came in for the summer, park was a summer tourist trap packed with students from the college, town was mostly Italians that loved their wine, and was on a major truck route. :fly:
You still had your fair share of guilty, uptight Catholics that came out mostly in the winter months...but 85% were too busy getting high and trying to keep from freezing.
-
Wow. I wouldn't have guessed Geneseo was liberal. Only ever drove through (or by) it though.
We'd usually stop in Corning, which definitely didn't feel that way.
-
Compare. Add your own
Liberal places tend to be more affluent, expensive yet generous with their social safety net. High taxes though, High cost of living.
Conservative places tend to be more behind the times, religious and more affordable with lower taxes and no real good social safety nets other than churches
Living in Northern California, there was both. The inner farm land areas were all Republican and the coast was all Democratic, big cities tend to be Liberal. Rual areas tend to be Conservative, as much as I hate to say this Is rather live in a Conservative area because the cost of living is better. It's a trade off I'd rather not have to make because I'm probably more socially liberal but it always comes down to money. The parties seem to be no different
It's interesting how political parties basically effect our everyday lives regardless if we like it or not, we need political free zones! :laugh:
:orly:
I think a basic inforstructor and government is needed however too far left of the issue and too far right always seems to rule the very middle that we all need. :fish2:
Orange County, Ca used to be an exception to this.
Expensive big cities that were conservative.
This was due to the fact that the northern part of the county was blue collar people working for defense and aerospace contractors and the southern part was white collar financial industry workers. Both occupations tended to attract conservative people.
This has changed in recent years as immigrants (cough, cough, wetbacks) move in.
-
Wow. I wouldn't have guessed Geneseo was liberal. Only ever drove through (or by) it though.
We'd usually stop in Corning, which definitely didn't feel that way.
Geneseo used to be a nice place to hang out, college town with a lot of nice shops & coffee houses...haven't seen it in over 30 yrs though. I was a town over, next to that dam.
Never spent a lot of time in Corning, at the glass museum quite a few time though, it used to be pretty awesome but different. My dad went to the consistory over there (Mason).
-
It's rather liberal around here for the most part though some towns are a bit conservative. A few towns away is Yale University and home of the super liberal. Growing up in Florida the city limits were somewhat liberal but once you got out into the county it was another world
-
Are there areas in the U.S. that are genuinely liberal in the true sense of the word instead of this socdem thing?
-
Are there areas in the U.S. that are genuinely liberal in the true sense of the word instead of this socdem thing?
Seeing as we are all working off a different definition of the word "liberal", it's probably better if you define what you mean by "liberal" and ask if there is anyone like that.
Otherwise you will not receive any meaningful answer.
-
In between classical and social. I'm classical.
-
That's like "define reptile: it's in between a fish and a mammal".
-
It means a centrist interpretation. Social is left, classical is right. Libertarianism is very right depending on the interpretation.
-
In between classical and social. I'm classical.
Our Liberal Party used to be like that. Now they are hardcore Tories. Our Labor party is Tory-lite.
-
Classical liberalism you wouldn't like. Free markets, tough on crime, civil liberties, low taxes, etc etc. The problem is, as always, the socialists. And you're one. If you were a labour type one and not a Corbynite you would be OK.
-
I'd be a Liberal voter.
-
You really are against the civil service. Go too far in any direction and they won't wear it. Which is why there is no libertarian paradise nor socialist panacea.
-
Classical liberalism you wouldn't like. Free markets, tough on crime, civil liberties, low taxes, etc etc. The problem is, as always, the socialists. And you're one. If you were a labour type one and not a Corbynite you would be OK.
I don't even know much about Corbyn. I tend to agree with a few things he has said, and find most criticism of him that I have been to be invalid or dishonest at best.
By "labour type [socialist]", do you mean people like Tony Blair who pretend to be trying to lift up the working class through Thatcherism?
If you want to define what type of lefty I am by comparing me to a politician, you could take a look at Bernie Sanders' platform. There is barely any gap between my ideological positions on most things and Bernie's platform.
-
In between classical and social. I'm classical.
Our Liberal Party used to be like that. Now they are hardcore Tories. Our Labor party is Tory-lite.
When I was growing up and when I first started voting, there was a stark difference between Labour and Liberal. I was a Labour voter. Labour was for the working man and had their interests in mind. They worked hand in hand with the Unions. Liberals were for the upper middle class and Business owners.
That was cool. You knew where everyone stood. When the unions got stripped off their power and force, Labour lost its way a little. Then there was little between the two parties. All the representatives from both parties went to same school and universities and generally were all ex-Lawyers or Businessmen or Upper management types. Nothing substantial between them in policies. They would play turns in berating the sitting government policies and then instigate the same policies when they were in whilst the other party had their turn berating their policies.
Now Liberals have not changed substantially but in the last few years Labour has wholeheartedly adopted Progressive policies. This almost makes the Greens a mute point. They are "slight more Progressive" maybe, but it is so hard to tell. In a few years time, who knows maybe they will become a coalition like the Liberals and Nationals.
I will not vote Labour again.
-
If you want to define what type of lefty I am by comparing me to a politician, you could take a look at Bernie Sanders' platform. There is barely any gap between my ideological positions on most things and Bernie's platform.
Corbyn is a much more extreme Sanders. Corbyn supports terrorists as well as having a mental economic worldview. Really, having him as leader is bad for democracy.
-
That's just taking the populist way out. He doesn't support terrorism, which a fact check will show. He is one of the most useless opposition politicians in modern history and about as likely to actually win an election as Mickey Mouse, but that just means he is incompetent.
-
Then again, facing Boris in the next election should be loads of fun. The idiot vs the incompetent.
-
That's just taking the populist way out. He doesn't support terrorism, which a fact check will show. He is one of the most useless opposition politicians in modern history and about as likely to actually win an election as Mickey Mouse, but that just means he is incompetent.
All those meetings with Sinn Féin during the Troubles and Interpal and other Hamas and Hezbollah front groups?
I'd vote Labour if they were normal and the Tories weren't. Next election I will be voting for the Conservatives.
Boris is alright in my book.
-
Boris is sort of like a British version of Trump. Both lie through their teeth and both continue to do so when exposed. And both make fools of themselves without being prompted in any way.
And Corbyn, while an idiot, does not support terrorism, he simply keeps on making bad choices as dictated by his particular brand of socialism.
-
And Corbyn, while an idiot, does not support terrorism, he simply keeps on making bad choices as dictated by his particular brand of socialism.
If a Tory MP spoke at a private EDL meeting what would you think of them?
-
When I was growing up and when I first started voting, there was a stark difference between Labour and Liberal. I was a Labour voter. Labour was for the working man and had their interests in mind. They worked hand in hand with the Unions. Liberals were for the upper middle class and Business owners.
That was cool. You knew where everyone stood. When the unions got stripped off their power and force, Labour lost its way a little. Then there was little between the two parties. All the representatives from both parties went to same school and universities and generally were all ex-Lawyers or Businessmen or Upper management types. Nothing substantial between them in policies. They would play turns in berating the sitting government policies and then instigate the same policies when they were in whilst the other party had their turn berating their policies.
sounds remarkably similar to Britain
One strikiing difference I nioticed between England and everywhere else (that's been mentioned so far) is that our cities (with the exception of London , ofc) tend to be predomitately ""liberal" and relatively cheap to live in , whilst the small towns and villages are predominately conservative . The polar opposite of what you guys said.
I suppose that's on account of our population density, which puts land and pretty lanscapes at a premium , and makes everywhere really close to everywhere else (as Americans and Aussies would view it) ....if you can afford the really high transport costs. So the middle class have pretty much taken over the attractive rural spots, because they're so much more pleasant to live in, and have no problem with commmuting to work , wheeras the working class count themselves lucky if they can get affordable housing, or social housing in inner-city areas, not only because it's much cheaper than a country cottasge, but also -increasingly often - their wages won't stretch to the cost of commuting; so they need to live right on the doorstep of what little bit of industry is left. That said, all cities have their nice, leafy districts, with detached houses set in nice big gardens, but you really need to be a millionaire to buy one of those. Your average city-dweller is poor, and the country folk (with a few odd exceptions) are predominately well-off.
-
What you mean is that they're socialist craphouses, with people that don't rexpect other people and their property.
-
What you mean is that they're socialist craphouses, with people that don't rexpect other people and their property.
I think you're referring to places where a signifiant minority of the population have been ground so far into the dirt that they find no purpose in life beyond making life even more miserable for the majority (who just had the luck to land in the dirt, but have not as yet been ground into it)
As for socialists, most of the socialists that i know actually have property (if owning your own home counts?) , all of them respect other people's property (except insofar as big industry, for example, is somebody's property). The main difference is that they don't feel smug about their relative good fortune, nor measure a man's worth by his bank balance, so they will regard a guy who lives in a Council bedsit as their equal.
Still can't decide if you really are obnoxious , or just enjoy making obnoxious comments
-
What you mean is that they're socialist craphouses, with people that don't rexpect other people and their property.
I think you're referring to places where a signifiant minority of the population have been ground so far into the dirt that they find no purpose in life beyond making life even more miserable for the majority (who just had the luck to land in the dirt, but have not as yet been ground into it)
As for socialists, most of the socialists that i know actually have property (if owning your own home counts?) , all of them respect other people's property (except insofar as big industry, for example, is somebody's property). The main difference is that they don't feel smug about their relative good fortune, nor measure a man's worth by his bank balance, so they will regard a guy who lives in a Council bedsit as their equal.
Still can't decide if you really are obnoxious , or just enjoy making obnoxious comments
You don't treat me as your equal. You're bitter and resentful.
-
What you mean is that they're socialist craphouses, with people that don't rexpect other people and their property.
I think you're referring to places where a signifiant minority of the population have been ground so far into the dirt that they find no purpose in life beyond making life even more miserable for the majority (who just had the luck to land in the dirt, but have not as yet been ground into it)
As for socialists, most of the socialists that i know actually have property (if owning your own home counts?) , all of them respect other people's property (except insofar as big industry, for example, is somebody's property). The main difference is that they don't feel smug about their relative good fortune, nor measure a man's worth by his bank balance, so they will regard a guy who lives in a Council bedsit as their equal.
Still can't decide if you really are obnoxious , or just enjoy making obnoxious comments
Why should it be OK to disrespect private property just because they have a bit of money?
-
And Corbyn, while an idiot, does not support terrorism, he simply keeps on making bad choices as dictated by his particular brand of socialism.
If a Tory MP spoke at a private EDL meeting what would you think of them?
Pretty much what I think of them now.
-
And Corbyn, while an idiot, does not support terrorism, he simply keeps on making bad choices as dictated by his particular brand of socialism.
If a Tory MP spoke at a private EDL meeting what would you think of them?
Pretty much what I think of them now.
My point is that a rational person wouldn't think the Tories had any love of the EDL. If I spoke at a series of far-right meetings whilst being right-wing, what does it look like?
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
-
Progressives call everyone on the right, Far Right. In fact the call the centrists and Classical Liberals, Far Right.
They do this because every position even centrist is so far right of them. They don't understand it HAS to be measured from the centre to establish where Far Right and Far Left is.
-
Tequila, do you plan to earn a high income when you are out? In between all the shagging, of course. Will you resent paying tax on that income?
-
Progressives call everyone on the right, Far Right. In fact the call the centrists and Classical Liberals, Far Right.
They do this because every position even centrist is so far right of them. They don't understand it HAS to be measured from the centre to establish where Far Right and Far Left is.
But the centre itself is a construct, and varies through time and according to one's perspective.
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
He's spoken at communist meetings before today and supported the USSR during the Cold War.
You'll eat that.
-
Tequila, do you plan to earn a high income when you are out? In between all the shagging, of course. Will you resent paying tax on that income?
My financial situation is private.
-
Far-right: Neo-Nazis, ultranationalists, etc.
Far-left: Hardcore socialists, communists.
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
He's spoken at communist meetings before today and supported the USSR during the Cold War.
You'll eat that.
I don't think you have enough experience of the various kinds of socialism to form a relevant opinion here. Sorry. I can see how you become vulnerable to the kind of bs that populists harvest naive voters with.
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
He's spoken at communist meetings before today and supported the USSR during the Cold War.
You'll eat that.
I don't think you have enough experience of the various kinds of socialism to form a relevant opinion here. Sorry. I can see how you become vulnerable to the kind of bs that populists harvest naive voters with.
Socialism is really about taking things away from people that aren't theirs. Some state intervention is necessary for a functioning state, and I like things like a national health system and a welfare state, which were inventions of the Liberals in this country, not Labour. Labour took the credit. But I am mostly for minimal regulation and low taxation.
-
We have the communists setting up turn-up cafés in the North West, implying that punters can have sex with the women there. They have already been shut down in some places, including in famously left-wing Liverpool.
-
What you mean is that they're socialist craphouses, with people that don't rexpect other people and their property.
I think you're referring to places where a signifiant minority of the population have been ground so far into the dirt that they find no purpose in life beyond making life even more miserable for the majority (who just had the luck to land in the dirt, but have not as yet been ground into it)
As for socialists, most of the socialists that i know actually have property (if owning your own home counts?) , all of them respect other people's property (except insofar as big industry, for example, is somebody's property). The main difference is that they don't feel smug about their relative good fortune, nor measure a man's worth by his bank balance, so they will regard a guy who lives in a Council bedsit as their equal.
Still can't decide if you really are obnoxious , or just enjoy making obnoxious comments
Why should it be OK to disrespect private property just because they have a bit of money?
I think you misunderstood my little caveat in brackets?
by that, I meant that you can't seriously expect a socialist to respect a billionaire's "right" to own the land that other people live on, and to own other people's means of making a living . nor can you expect a socialistist to respect the billionaire's concommitant "'right" to treat other people as disposable economic units , to be fucked around with in the name of profit.
Still, that said, the issue is just with that abstract right to ownership. No reason why not treat the property itself with respect. Indeed, socialistst in general and the lower classes in general tend to treat goods and chattels with far more respect than the owner does, being far more aware of the actual value of the things.
Mindless vandalism is only committted by people who are, in one way or another, broken . And theft is mostly commited by desperate people and by psycopaths. There are plenty of desperate people living in the Uk (not to mention the rest of the world) today, and plenty of psycopaths in charge of things, therefore plenty of theft . But socialists don''t condone theft, nor do socialists create those conditiions; but rather they hope to fix those conditions.
-
My mum grew up with fuck all. It didn't turn her into a thief.
About me - if you knew...
-
You don't treat me as your equal. You're bitter and resentful.
I just tried very hard to think of somebody who could ever have realistically levelled that charge against me. I eventually came up with just one one possibilty (my ex-landlady) but I'm pretty damned sure that she wouldn't be hanging around on a spazz forum , calling herseld Teqila :LOL:. And it would mostly be projection on her part anyway.
Why do you talk as if we even know each other? All I know of you is what you say here, and I take nearly all of that with a ton of salt
-
My mum grew up with fuck all. It didn't turn her into a thief.
could say the exact same thing about my Mum. Where did I say that all poor people are desperate? and that all desperate people turn to theft? just that there's an undeniable correllation between these things; and that the notion that people live in squalid conditions because they're contemptible people is a totally nuts way of explaining that correlation. It's a lot like that Nazi propaganda that said Jews were dirty people who carried nasty diseases, whilst squashing them into ghettos with such poor sanitation that it turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Your average German citizen was dumb enough to fall for that sort of "logic"", and - surprise , surprise, so are a lot of comfortably-off people (and even some of the poor people too) today. In the UK, the Tory party has sucessfully demonised the poor, using similar rhetorical tricks and propaganda. So, naturally, whenever you throw little bits of that toxic propanda into this forum as mindless little sound-bites, it gets right up my nose; and i sincerely hope you're just trolling when you do that.
About me - if you knew...
Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'd much sooner know about you than about your (mostly obnoxious) opinions and your (presumably empty) boasts. But you're not giving us the chance to know about you, are you? (not that I altogether blame you for that :LOL: This is not the best place for exposing your vulnerability, is it?)
-
Most Jews in this country who vote are Tory voters, even without Corbyn being there. :D
The dehumanisation of Tory voters by the left is well-known.
-
My mum grew up with fuck all. It didn't turn her into a thief.
could say the exact same thing about my Mum. Where did I say that all poor people are desperate? and that all desperate people turn to theft? just that there's an undeniable correllation between these things; and that the notion that people live in squalid conditions because they're contemptible people is a totally nuts way of explaining that correlation. It's a lot like that Nazi propaganda that said Jews were dirty people who carried nasty diseases, whilst squashing them into ghettos with such poor sanitation that it turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Your average German citizen was dumb enough to fall for that sort of "logic"", and - surprise , surprise, so are a lot of comfortably-off people (and even some of the poor people too) today. In the UK, the Tory party has sucessfully demonised the poor, using similar rhetorical tricks and propaganda. So, naturally, whenever you throw little bits of that toxic propanda into this forum as mindless little sound-bites, it gets right up my nose; and i sincerely hope you're just trolling when you do that.
About me - if you knew...
Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'd much sooner know about you than about your (mostly obnoxious) opinions and your (presumably empty) boasts. But you're not giving us the chance to know about you, are you? (not that I altogether blame you for that :LOL: This is not the best place for exposing your vulnerability, is it?)
You're a supporter of republican extremists. They're helping you write this.
-
You're a supporter of republican extremists. They're helping you write this.
QFT... :apondering: or should I say QFL ? or even QF non compos mentis ad absurdum
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
He's spoken at communist meetings before today and supported the USSR during the Cold War.
You'll eat that.
I don't think you have enough experience of the various kinds of socialism to form a relevant opinion here. Sorry. I can see how you become vulnerable to the kind of bs that populists harvest naive voters with.
Socialism is really about taking things away from people that aren't theirs. Some state intervention is necessary for a functioning state, and I like things like a national health system and a welfare state, which were inventions of the Liberals in this country, not Labour. Labour took the credit. But I am mostly for minimal regulation and low taxation.
I can only refer you to what I wrote.
-
You're jumping to conclusions by mixing hypotheticals with politically motivated stupidity by an idiot.
He's spoken at communist meetings before today and supported the USSR during the Cold War.
You'll eat that.
I don't think you have enough experience of the various kinds of socialism to form a relevant opinion here. Sorry. I can see how you become vulnerable to the kind of bs that populists harvest naive voters with.
Socialism is really about taking things away from people that aren't theirs. Some state intervention is necessary for a functioning state, and I like things like a national health system and a welfare state, which were inventions of the Liberals in this country, not Labour. Labour took the credit. But I am mostly for minimal regulation and low taxation.
I can only refer you to what I wrote.
Give me a socialism I'll like the sound of.
-
Who said you'd have to like it? I'm saying that people, politicians included, have done lots of things that you wouldn't understand because you obviously have very little practical understanding of what socialism can be like. You simply parrot populist propaganda, and there's no suitable answer to be found there. Try to be a bit more open-minded - don't start by assuming you know best and everyone who disagrees must therefore be wrong.
-
Who said you'd have to like it? I'm saying that people, politicians included, have done lots of things that you wouldn't understand because you obviously have very little practical understanding of what socialism can be like. You simply parrot populist propaganda, and there's no suitable answer to be found there. Try to be a bit more open-minded - don't start by assuming you know best and everyone who disagrees must therefore be wrong.
I've given you an open platform for socialism. I'm waiting. The SD are the heirs of Sweden's social democratic heritage. A society like Sweden can only work when the society is relatively homogenous and united.
-
That's so far off the mark that it's almost funny. Well, actually it's mostly sad. You really have no idea.
-
That's really the problem. You can't sell me an ideology I want to buy. You instead want to impose by threats snd violence. Bit like the fascists.
-
Threats and violence? Seriously? I'm not selling you anything, I'm simply telling you that you're so far off the mark that it hurts.
-
No-one wants pizza. This is why right-wing parties dominate across Europe. With the exception of Denmark, who took on right-wing immigration policies.
-
I like pizza. Gluten free is essential.
-
I like pizza. Gluten free is essential.
I like mine with extra gluten :zoinks:
-
Tequila, most of your assumptions about socialists are incorrect. Clueless, in fact. At least two of us (Odeon and I) would be a lot worse off under socialism, but we recognize the human rights of those less privileged than ourselves and would love to live in a fairer society.
I will try to keep this relatively brief, it would be very easy to end up writing a “War and Peace” length epic post.
You want people at all levels of society to respect the property of those better off than themselves. You want law and order. You want borders and armed forces and police and a legal system and prisons. Those things are societal constructs.
Peel away the layers of society and you do not have any innate right to property (including any money that you manage to accumulate). All you have is what you are able to accumulate and/or take, and defend until someone stronger takes it off you or kills you. Intrinsic rights to property are also a societal construct.
Thatcher famously said “there is no society”. When people like Thatcher say things like that, what they really mean is that they only want the elements of society that benefit them, and they don’t want the elements of society that benefit those less well off than themselves. In fact, they want those less well off than themselves to work to protect what they perceive as the “rights” of the privileged.
Tax isn’t theft. Tax is a small price to pay for the benefits that living in a society brings you. In fact, being expected to pay a lot of tax generally means that you’ve done a lot better out of society than many others, and you should be grateful. It goes back to the idea of an implied “social contract”.
When people like Odeon and Walkie and myself say that we want policies that benefit those less well off in society, this is branded socialism. The reality is that most of what we are talking about is not literally socialism, but we get sick of explaining that to idiots and so we proudly adopt the label. A lot like Bernie Sanders has done.
-
I like pizza. Gluten free is essential.
Then that's you. You wouldn't if you understood what I meant.
-
I like pizza. Gluten free is essential.
Then that's you. You wouldn't if you understood what I meant.
Well I could eat gluten, but then I'd get nausea and pass a lot of wind. Better for me to stick to gluten free for everyone's sake.
Also, speaking in code doesn't make you clever.
-
Keep ordering our pizza or we hurt your family.
-
Keep ordering our pizza or we hurt your family.
It's a tree horse wanting to accommodate socialism pizza in flower bed arrangements.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you liked random word salads.
-
It's sex abuse. You approve of it if you ignore it. You ignore it, so you like Arab immigrants raping teenagers. With a lot of SD supporters it's family that's involved. Same with a lot of the support for Wilders.
You say anything to Labour here about me? You pay.
-
Willful options care much for grassy knoll leftists in substance clouds.
This is fun. I can see why you do it.
-
Word salad.
-
Yes. Isn't that what you wanted?
-
Socialism is really about taking things away from people that aren't theirs. Some state intervention is necessary for a functioning state, and I like things like a national health system and a welfare state, which were inventions of the Liberals in this country, not Labour. Labour took the credit. But I am mostly for minimal regulation and low taxation.
Bold mine.
Outside of a society, possessions are merely territory or things that you are able to make, take or claim and then defend. Think of a “beach master” elephant seal, with his tract of sand and his harem of females, defending what is “his” with nothing more than 3 or 4 tonnes of fat and muscle. There's no elephant seal 911 he can call and say "hey, some big fat bastard just lumbered onto my beach and shagged one of my sheilas".
Many mammals and birds claim, mark, patrol and protect a section of territory. There is no natural “right” to that land, that territory. Only what they are strong enough to claim and protect.
Humans, on the other hand, cooperate and form societies and within those societies we recognize that people have various rights including property rights. We even have police forces and judicial systems and armed forces to defend the defined rights of people within a society. The institutions that we have in place to protect things like property rights come at a cost, and society as a whole pays that cost. And society chooses to respect your right to accumulate property and $$$$.
This is the social contract in action. Your imagined property rights and financial rights only exist within the structure of society. Without society, it’s the law of the jungle. And in return for what the social contract gives you, you give something back so that everyone who agrees to be part of a society and abide by the laws of society shares some of the benefits of that society.
What the political centre, under the guise of neoliberalism, has been doing for the past few decades is gradually dismantling the “giving something back” side of the social contract. It’s dog eat dog trying to survive if you are not one of the privileged. But they get to keep what they like about the social contract, the institutions that protect their wealth and privilege.
That shit won’t last forever.
-
^ very well put! :plus:
I've got a cartoon pic of an elephant seal calling 911 stuck in my head now :lol1: