Sanders explains what democratic socialism is

[Uncle Ben]

 

[ttystikk]

I've spent the first half of my life watching this country go of the deep end to the right. I could enjoy watching it fall off the left cliff the rest of my days... I'm old enough to know better than to expect things to swing towards the middle and stay there!

 

[Uncle Ben]

I've spent the first half of my life watching this country go of the deep end to the right. I could enjoy watching it fall off the left cliff the rest of my days... I'm old enough to know better than to expect things to swing towards the middle and stay there!

Do you have a Dyslexia disorder?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I've been thinking of calling myself a 'social democrat', because I think social programs are a necessary and appropriate part of living in a modern first world country.

Those who think that they needn't support their fellow citizens through health care, education and social safety net programs- or even fire and police protection- I shall henceforth refer to in aggregate as quite simply 'anti-social!'

It's a cutesy label, glib- yet the implication is one of selfishness and greed. Perfect!

Many people believe in supporting others without a gun pointed at their head, because usually when you have to use violence to get what you want some kind of crime has been committed. Generally speaking. And look! Rampant criminality in government. Think it's a coincidence? Or a culture of no accountability?

More over such forced programs create divide and resentment among the citizens - for very legitimate reasons. The guy who doesn't want to pay to treat the lung cancer of a guy who smoked his entire life in spite of being told it would kill him actually has a logical point. You can call him heartless if you like, but it's legitimate. Which then leads to the idea of equal application of rights. Because almost everyone can agree that the law should be applied equally, whatever it might be. So one guy is not smoking, the other guy is - clearly there has been unequal application and one guy is paying extra for the others vice. This is not fair. Which then leads to justification of totalitarian measures - really harsh ones too because black markets will inevitably form if you simply tax vices (ie: in Canada its much cheaper to buy your smokes on the BM) and then you wind up with citizens benefiting without contributing once again. Plus it's an arbitrary number so it's basically impossible to actually apply the law equally in this situation.

This is a somewhat minor incident as far as ideology clash is concerned in such systems. Inevitably one ideology will simply want to crush the other (see Left Right divide now.. yet somehow both sides always go for more authoritarian solutions lol anyway).

Gay marriage and other social issues the government has taken on are issues that draw much more extreme hostility. And most of it stems from people being forced by government through laws well beyond the reasonable scope that cause grief for consenting adults. The whole case with the lady who didn't want to sign marriage licenses wouldn't (and should not) have even happened if the government wasn't involved in the first place. As stupid and as apparently whore like as she was, she did have a point. If only in that she personally shouldn't be forced to sign against her beliefs. And the couple had a very legitimate point in that they deserve to be allowed to be married. These conflicts are not possible to solve cleanly. The only answer is freedom and a protection of both groups. Which can only happen if the government isn't writing policy they shouldn't be in the first place (ie: What genders can marry and who is legally married in the first place... seems to me that a contract between two individuals is more than enough to establish that.).

It's bad. It will never work in the long run. It will only lead to authoritarian governments, which is essentially what the powerful folk in the world want.

"Competition is a sin"

John D. Rockefeller

 

[ttystikk]

Many people believe in supporting others without a gun pointed at their head, because usually when you have to use violence to get what you want some kind of crime has been committed. Generally speaking. And look! Rampant criminality in government. Think it's a coincidence? Or a culture of no accountability?

More over such forced programs create divide and resentment among the citizens - for very legitimate reasons. The guy who doesn't want to pay to treat the lung cancer of a guy who smoked his entire life in spite of being told it would kill him actually has a logical point. You can call him heartless if you like, but it's legitimate. Which then leads to the idea of equal application of rights. Because almost everyone can agree that the law should be applied equally, whatever it might be. So one guy is not smoking, the other guy is - clearly there has been unequal application and one guy is paying extra for the others vice. This is not fair. Which then leads to justification of totalitarian measures - really harsh ones too because black markets will inevitably form if you simply tax vices (ie: in Canada its much cheaper to buy your smokes on the BM) and then you wind up with citizens benefiting without contributing once again. Plus it's an arbitrary number so it's basically impossible to actually apply the law equally in this situation.

This is a somewhat minor incident as far as ideology clash is concerned in such systems. Inevitably one ideology will simply want to crush the other (see Left Right divide now.. yet somehow both sides always go for more authoritarian solutions lol anyway).

Gay marriage and other social issues the government has taken on are issues that draw much more extreme hostility. And most of it stems from people being forced by government through laws well beyond the reasonable scope that cause grief for consenting adults. The whole case with the lady who didn't want to sign marriage licenses wouldn't (and should not) have even happened if the government wasn't involved in the first place. As stupid and as apparently whore like as she was, she did have a point. If only in that she personally shouldn't be forced to sign against her beliefs. And the couple had a very legitimate point in that they deserve to be allowed to be married. These conflicts are not possible to solve cleanly. The only answer is freedom and a protection of both groups. Which can only happen if the government isn't writing policy they shouldn't be in the first place (ie: What genders can marry and who is legally married in the first place... seems to me that a contract between two individuals is more than enough to establish that.).

It's bad. It will never work in the long run. It will only lead to authoritarian governments, which is essentially what the powerful folk in the world want.

"Competition is a sin"

John D. Rockefeller

The stupid county clerk TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW. She was rightly punished for refusing to live up to that oath. No one forced her to take that position and no one gave her the authority to make determinations about other people's eligibility to marry. You'd have every lil government peon be part of the 'unassailable machine of government' which is bullshit. We The People created this government and therefore it's up to US to demand that it work properly, respect everyone's rights and operate without corruption!

I refuse to accept the idea that government is by nature corrupt; it's a lie crafted to conveniently cover for those who steal from our collective wealth. Why don't we hold such people accountable? That's what laws are for! Why do we allow our legal system to NOT indict the rich and powerful when they commit malfeasance on small or grand scales?

In other words, We the People DO have the power- despite what Faux Spews might darkly imply- to hold those in our society accountable for their actions and the consequences whether they're in government or not.

And, the responsibility.

 

[NLXSK1]

The stupid county clerk TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW. She was rightly punished for refusing to live up to that oath. No one forced her to take that position and no one gave her the authority to make determinations about other people's eligibility to marry. You'd have every lil government peon be part of the 'unassailable machine of government' which is bullshit. We The People created this government and therefore it's up to US to demand that it work properly, respect everyone's rights and operate without corruption!

I refuse to accept the idea that government is by nature corrupt; it's a lie crafted to conveniently cover for those who steal from our collective wealth. Why don't we hold such people accountable? That's what laws are for! Why do we allow our legal system to NOT indict the rich and powerful when they commit malfeasance on small or grand scales?

In other words, We the People DO have the power- despite what Faux Spews might darkly imply- to hold those in our society accountable for their actions and the consequences whether they're in government or not.

And, the responsibility.

Why did the government take it upon itself to decide who could marry who? If the government did not have this role would this be an issue in the first place? The government creates problems and creates bigger problems attempting to solve the original problems it creates.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gay marriage and other social issues the government has taken on are issues that draw much more extreme hostility. And most of it stems from people being forced by government through laws well beyond the reasonable scope that cause grief for consenting adults. The whole case with the lady who didn't want to sign marriage licenses wouldn't (and should not) have even happened if the government wasn't involved in the first place.

rawn pawl lost, ya fucking loser. quit spamming his retarded bullshit.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why did the government take it upon itself to decide who could marry who?

bigoted retards like you made constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, that's how.

cry some more.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

rawn pawl lost, ya fucking loser. quit spamming his retarded bullshit.

Nice refutation. Every point outlined was correct.

The stupid county clerk TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW. She was rightly punished for refusing to live up to that oath. No one forced her to take that position and no one gave her the authority to make determinations about other people's eligibility to marry. You'd have every lil government peon be part of the 'unassailable machine of government' which is bullshit. We The People created this government and therefore it's up to US to demand that it work properly, respect everyone's rights and operate without corruption!

I refuse to accept the idea that government is by nature corrupt; it's a lie crafted to conveniently cover for those who steal from our collective wealth. Why don't we hold such people accountable? That's what laws are for! Why do we allow our legal system to NOT indict the rich and powerful when they commit malfeasance on small or grand scales?

In other words, We the People DO have the power- despite what Faux Spews might darkly imply- to hold those in our society accountable for their actions and the consequences whether they're in government or not.

And, the responsibility.

The Constitution > any law. The Constitution protects her right to practice her religion. It protects her from government intervention as well. As a government employee she has the right to have her views protected. She has the right to not sign - and AFAIK she has not been forced to. Someone else has signed in lieu. Now she wanted to go further and say they shouldn't be allowed at all because of her religion and she was wrong about that. But the conflict is still real and legitimate and still would never have happened if government wasn't involved in the first place. Marriage was always a religious and civil institution. It should remain that way but the tax code does not allow it.

You have to respect her rights too though and you have to respect her right to not sign based on religious conviction, whether you agree with it or not. Which can cause a big problem if you have a group of people who are unwilling to sign. Which is why it's best to just make it between individuals and let them sort it out.

Centralized power will always bring sociopaths who want to take it. Most normal people aren't attracted to jobs like the Presidency because they don't want the responsibility for other peoples lives because they could barely function with the stress. Sociopaths are really the only people cut out to be leaders and generally are the only people that really want leadership positions. And we need to recognize it or disaster always strikes. Never in history has a government not become corrupted severely. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon. Those who steal our collective wealth mostly use government to do it. Crony contracts, the money monopoly...

By definition government is the one with power. They have the monopoly on force. How are you going to hold them accountable? It's quite clear that you have no way to do so at this point. You have either Trump, who talks about real issues and then offers ridiculous extreme authoritarian solutions or Sanders who talks about real problems and then offers different extreme authoritarian solutions.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nice refutation. Every point outlined was correct.

nope, it was all bigoted rawn pawl spam.

saying government should get out of marriage altogether rather than just correct the gay marriage inequality was the bigot's delay move.

you fucking lose on that, bigot.

and you stole that talking point verbatim from rawn pawl, the racist fucker who printed those racist ass newsletters.

i guess all that racist shit appealed to you though, eh?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

nope, it was all bigoted rawn pawl spam.

saying government should get out of marriage altogether rather than just correct the gay marriage inequality was the bigot's delay move.

you fucking lose on that, bigot.

and you stole that talking point verbatim from rawn pawl, the racist fucker who printed those racist ass newsletters.

i guess all that racist shit appealed to you though, eh?

You're the pro planned parenthood clown. Go hate on more black people.

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

A quote from Your Hero, Maragaret Sanger - champion of planned Parenthood - also who coincidentally set almost all of them up in black and poor neighbourhoods. Over 70% reside in black neighbourhoods today. You racist planned parenthood supporting fuckwad.

More fun Sanger quotes:
“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan.”
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
I know you hate black people but, no need to project your own feelings upon me.

 

[UncleBuck]

You're the pro planned parenthood clown. Go hate on more black people you racist fuck.



Your Hero, Maragaret Sanger - champion of planned Parenthood - also who coincidentally set almost all of them up in black and poor neighbourhoods. Over 70% reside in black neighbourhoods today. You racist planned parenthood supporting fuckwad.

I know you hate black people but, no need to project your own feelings upon me.

so i guess you don't want to talk about how you are spamming hopeless rawn pawl positions verbatim, but would instead like to accuse me of things which i never supported.

makes sense for a mentally retarded person like you.

 

[ttystikk]

Nice refutation. Every point outlined was correct.



The Constitution > any law. The Constitution protects her right to practice her religion. It protects her from government intervention as well. As a government employee she has the right to have her views protected. She has the right to not sign - and AFAIK she has not been forced to. Someone else has signed in lieu. Now she wanted to go further and say they shouldn't be allowed at all because of her religion and she was wrong about that. But the conflict is still real and legitimate and still would never have happened if government wasn't involved in the first place. Marriage was always a religious and civil institution. It should remain that way but the tax code does not allow it.

You have to respect her rights too though and you have to respect her right to not sign based on religious conviction, whether you agree with it or not. Which can cause a big problem if you have a group of people who are unwilling to sign. Which is why it's best to just make it between individuals and let them sort it out.

Centralized power will always bring sociopaths who want to take it. Most normal people aren't attracted to jobs like the Presidency because they don't want the responsibility for other peoples lives because they could barely function with the stress. Sociopaths are really the only people cut out to be leaders and generally are the only people that really want leadership positions. And we need to recognize it or disaster always strikes. Never in history has a government not become corrupted severely. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon. Those who steal our collective wealth mostly use government to do it. Crony contracts, the money monopoly...

By definition government is the one with power. They have the monopoly on force. How are you going to hold them accountable? It's quite clear that you have no way to do so at this point. You have either Trump, who talks about real issues and then offers ridiculous extreme authoritarian solutions or Sanders who talks about real problems and then offers different extreme authoritarian solutions.

TL;DR

The idea that the county clerk can assert her religion as an excuse to Fuck with other people's lives as part of her official position is as screwed up as the rest of the ideological bullshit spewed from the right.

If it's against her religion, DON'T ACCEPT THE POSITION! NO ONE FORCED HER TO TAKE OVER HER MOMMY'S JOB! She swore an oath of office, which includes upholding the law. ALL OF IT, not just the parts she and her badly skewed view of religion happens to like.

 

[NLXSK1]

TL;DR

The idea that the county clerk can assert her religion as an excuse to Fuck with other people's lives as part of her official position is as screwed up as the rest of the ideological bullshit spewed from the right.

If it's against her religion, DON'T ACCEPT THE POSITION! NO ONE FORCED HER TO TAKE OVER HER MOMMY'S JOB! She swore an oath of office, which includes upholding the law. ALL OF IT, not just the parts she and her badly skewed view of religion happens to like.

To be fair, when she took the position the law was not in effect.

 

[ttystikk]

nope, it was all bigoted rawn pawl spam.

saying government should get out of marriage altogether rather than just correct the gay marriage inequality was the bigot's delay move.

you fucking lose on that, bigot.

and you stole that talking point verbatim from rawn pawl, the racist fucker who printed those racist ass newsletters.

i guess all that racist shit appealed to you though, eh?

Where did I see recently that Donald the Chump supporters were overwhelmingly racists?

I think it was salon.com

 

[UncleBuck]

You have to respect her rights too though and you have to respect her right to not sign based on religious conviction, whether you agree with it or not.

no, only bigoted racists like you respect her for that.

Trump, who talks about real issues .

LOL!

 

[UncleBuck]

Shut your mouth racist.

Go support more black abortions you fuckin clown.

don't you support rawn pawl, who penned newsletters so racist that even rawn pawl had to disavow them, even though you never did?

LOL!

good job on not denying that you are spamming hopeless rawn pawl policy positions still.

even though you already lost, and are hopeless.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

TL;DR

The idea that the county clerk can assert her religion as an excuse to Fuck with other people's lives as part of her official position is as screwed up as the rest of the ideological bullshit spewed from the right.

If it's against her religion, DON'T ACCEPT THE POSITION! NO ONE FORCED HER TO TAKE OVER HER MOMMY'S JOB! She swore an oath of office, which includes upholding the law. ALL OF IT, not just the parts she and her badly skewed view of religion happens to like.

The idea that anyone can use the government to screw with anyone's beliefs is fucked up actually. Her beliefs are just as important as the those gay peoples. The government has way overstepped its bounds. You cannot solve this without moving government out of the job of determining marriage legality completely.

You clearly do not sympathize with her beliefs but that's totally irrelevant. Equal protection under law means equal protection for everyone. And she shouldn't have forgo a government (read: paid for and voted in by her and everyone else in the immediate area) job just because the government has overstepped.

It's called tyranny of the majority and the conflict is real, justified and cannot be solved through government intervention. And yeah, the gay people had a right to be married as well.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

no, only bigoted racists like you respect her for that.



LOL!

Learn to read. I don't particularly agree with her position, but it is her right to have it. And equal protection under law demands it is respected. So, you keep on being a biggot, biggot.

Whether you're hating on hate groups or hating on black people, it's non stop hate out of you.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

don't you support rawn pawl, who penned newsletters so racist that even rawn pawl had to disavow them, even though you never did?

LOL!

good job on not denying that you are spamming hopeless rawn pawl policy positions still.

even though you already lost, and are hopeless.

They are my own positions. Thanks. Keep on supporting black genocide. I know you love it. You hate black people. You hate anyone not like you in fact. Because you are king of biggots.