The 'Official' Do Not Vote For Obama In 2012 - Thread. Don't Want Him Back N Office!

[canndo]

It has everything to do with yours

You said - "What makes a rich man’s life worth less than a poor mans? In the eyes of progressives the poor man’s is worth more so why?"

I replied that this is not the case. That when life is measured the way you are measuring it - by time, then progressives wish to take more from the rich in order for the life of the poor to be equal to the life of the rich. Hence, if you make a dollar a minute and a rich person makes a dollar a second, progressives would take more from the rich in order to compensate. This makes the rich and the poor's lives about equal does it not?

And then you said this "ou don’t have a right to equal results only equal opportunity. Where you start your race isn’t up to you but where you end up is. " Which is pretty much boiler plate Americana. We are not talking about opportunity or where each of us starts or finishes but how progressives would take proportionately more from the rich than the poor.

 

[Windsblow]

You said that your children have the moral right to your property did you not?

Nope! "if I make 1 billion dollars and my children inherit that when I pass". Inherit! They [children] don't have a right to anything unless the owner of said property gives them the right through an inheritance. You put the cart before the horse.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Pardon me, as I'm just trying to stimulate a more intelligent debate here....


What about Reagan did you like, and what policies of FDR's did you dislike? Also, if you are going to say something like "sucked balls" than I would greatly appreciate you back up your assertion with some evidence please.

The reason I ask, is that I've already defended FDR's new deal policies extensively and I would be happy to present undeniable evidence to support that assertion. It seems, however, that whenever I do this conservatives just stop posting. Is it because you have no evidence?

We’ve discussed these things in detail on this board countless times so I’ll just agree to disagree. I’m not dodging here I just don’t want to go down that road. All that happens is people talk at each other instead of 2 each other. And all the research to back up my post is just too time consuming to do today. I’m doing enough of that on my term papers. So maybe another day but today I’ll agree to disagree.

 

[canndo]

How is that the American Way? It might be the way of the European Aristrocratic system but it is not the American way. That's a leftist mythical narrative.

I was born poor as hell but I will be in the "top 1%" in 10 years because I decided to be, not because of a social or political construct predetermined that for me. Also, if I make 1 billion dollars and my children inherit that when I pass, they have the moral/ethical right to the fruits of my labor and it doesn't make anybody evil.

Is that you?

 

[BudMcLovin]

You said - "What makes a rich man’s life worth less than a poor mans? In the eyes of progressives the poor man’s is worth more so why?"

I replied that this is not the case. That when life is measured the way you are measuring it - by time, then progressives wish to take more from the rich in order for the life of the poor to be equal to the life of the rich. Hence, if you make a dollar a minute and a rich person makes a dollar a second, progressives would take more from the rich in order to compensate. This makes the rich and the poor's lives about equal does it not?

And then you said this "ou don’t have a right to equal results only equal opportunity. Where you start your race isn’t up to you but where you end up is. " Which is pretty much boiler plate Americana. We are not talking about opportunity or where each of us starts or finishes but how progressives would take proportionately more from the rich than the poor.

You’re for inequality built into the system no misunderstanding on my part. You think it’s ok to take one person’s personal property and give it to another and I don’t.

 

[Windsblow]

Pardon me, as I'm just trying to stimulate a more intelligent debate here....



The reason I ask, is that I've already defended FDR's new deal policies extensively and I would be happy to present undeniable evidence to support that assertion. It seems, however, that whenever I do this conservatives just stop posting. Is it because you have no evidence?

Three words "John Maynard Keynes".

 

[mame]

We’ve discussed these things in detail on this board countless times so I’ll just agree to disagree. I’m not dodging here I just don’t want to go down that road. All that happens is people talk at each other instead of 2 each other. And all the research to back up my post is just too time consuming to do today. I’m doing enough of that on my term papers. So maybe another day but today I’ll agree to disagree.

Fair enough. At least you didn't strait up disappear from the thread.

Three words "John Maynard Keynes".

The vast majority of his ideas have been proven to work. Just saying.

 

[londonfog]

Fair enough. At least you didn't strait up disappear from the thread.

kinda funny when they do that..but I give Bud that much respect..he might be wrong as hell, but at least he stay to debate his point..

 

[Windsblow]

Is that you?

Yes......... Here I will say it again.


"if I make 1 billion dollars and my children inherit that when I pass". Inherit! They [children] don't have a right to anything unless the owner of said property gives them the right through an inheritance. You put the cart before the horse.

 

[GottaHaveIt]

question which POTUS did you like ????

Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan is only in there because he had the foresight to establish the Dollar as reserve currency.

 

[londonfog]

Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan is only in there because he had the foresight to establish the Dollar as reserve currency.

I wish I could trickle down on Reagan...

Reagan - " is that pee coming down on my head"

ME- "No sir its rain"

 

[newworldicon]

I love this.....................

 

[canndo]

You’re for inequality built into the system no misunderstanding on my part. You think it’s ok to take one person’s personal property and give it to another and I don’t.

Actually you are. Most would claim that the rich owe no more than the poor with regard to government. You claim that you are forced to give a portion of your life. Now how is it not equitable for the rich to give the same amount of time as the poor? You must admit that we have to pay for our government. So long as people make different amounts of money and they are taxed at all, taxation will be a redistribution of wealth.

 

[canndo]

Yes......... Here I will say it again.


"if I make 1 billion dollars and my children inherit that when I pass". Inherit! They [children] don't have a right to anything unless the owner of said property gives them the right through an inheritance. You put the cart before the horse.

Better, now we see that no one has a right to anything but the fruits of their own labor. Now I agree that someone has the right to give another anything of theirs that they wish. But I do not agree that the dead have any right to have any of their wishes met after they are dead. The dead cannot own property. Rights end the moment a person dies.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Actually you are. Most would claim that the rich owe no more than the poor with regard to government. You claim that you are forced to give a portion of your life. Now how is it not equitable for the rich to give the same amount of time as the poor? You must admit that we have to pay for our government. So long as people make different amounts of money and they are taxed at all, taxation will be a redistribution of wealth.

Different skills are worth different amounts. It’s up to the individual to make themselves valuable to the market place. Because one person works smarter than another they should be required to put in more, that doesn’t make sense to me. I think it’s up to other free people to determine what your skills are worth to them not the government. And if your skills allow you to make more money so be it. I think the reason for taxes was to raise revenue for the government, not to get even with someone who is more valuable to the market place.

 

[Serapis]

This thread has been derailed....

 

[BudMcLovin]

But I do not agree that the dead have any right to have any of their wishes met after they are dead. The dead cannot own property. Rights end the moment a person dies.

The dead doesn’t own it. The living give it away upon their death so from the second they are dead it belongs to someone else.

 

[BudMcLovin]

I love this.....................

Prime example of why we should mind our own business.

 

[Windsblow]

[/QUOTE]The vast majority of his ideas have been proven to work. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

I could spend a whole lot of time giving examples and explain why Keynesian economics are responsible and then you will blame people and capitalism and then I will give you theories.... around and around we go. I will just save all that time and make this point. I believe Keynesian (or any other economic theory that give the State broad sweeping powers) to be dangerous. Keynesian economics haven't saved us from this global meltdown and if it seems like it has it is just putting off the inevitable.

 

[Windsblow]

Better, now we see that no one has a right to anything but the fruits of their own labor. Now I agree that someone has the right to give another anything of theirs that they wish. But I do not agree that the dead have any right to have any of their wishes met after they are dead. The dead cannot own property. Rights end the moment a person dies.

Man it seems like your spinning in circles here just arguing for the sake of argument. Your just being a contrarian.