Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

It's always the North

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 4:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies

Was there really a point to this troll thread?

LMAO at #3. Bad Radical Republicans for wanting to end slavery!

This is a bunch of nonsensical ad homs. What makes a society controlled by a slew of aristocrats better than one controlled by a civilian state?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 4:57:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies

You seem to be making a bit of generalization. It's always the north that invades the south to reunite? In all historical circumstances? Look, if you want to call the northern US dirty socialists who unjustifiably stopped the golden social order than the south had in place just go for it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies

why was invading the South wrong?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:07:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:55:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What makes a society controlled by a slew of aristocrats better than one controlled by a civilian state?

What makes a society controlled by a slew of proletariat better?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:10:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies:

I find that to be especially true of East and West Germany. ZING!!!!!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

States rights. Slavery would have died of natural causes anyway.


3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!

BTW, that stuff above made me LOL (in a good and bad way)

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:11:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:07:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:55:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What makes a society controlled by a slew of aristocrats better than one controlled by a civilian state?

What makes a society controlled by a slew of proletariat better?

The proletariat constitute the majority. If you force them to enter the society, they may as well benefit.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

States rights. Slavery would have died of natural causes anyway.

Well considering that it was spreading, I doubt it. Plus, THE SLAVES AT THAT TIME HAD RIGHTS. "IT WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAYS IS NOT AN EXCUSE." MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED IN 100 YEARS OR EVEN IN 3 MONTHS, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ENSLAVED AT THE MOMENT SHOULD NOT HAVED BEEN.

3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!

BTW, that stuff above made me LOL (in a good and bad way)

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:16:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 4:55:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies

Was there really a point to this troll thread?

LMAO at #3. Bad Radical Republicans for wanting to end slavery!

A.) Civil War was not over slavery
B.) I didn't mentioned slavery, so stop straw manning

This is a bunch of nonsensical ad homs. What makes a society controlled by a slew of aristocrats better than one controlled by a civilian state?

Another straw man
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
DantT, states rights are almost synonymous with slavery.

cough*George Wallace*cough

The Civil War was'n't over slavery you said? Then what was it over?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

States rights. Slavery would have died of natural causes anyway.

Well considering that it was spreading, I doubt it. Plus, THE SLAVES AT THAT TIME HAD RIGHTS. "IT WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAYS IS NOT AN EXCUSE." MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED IN 100 YEARS OR EVEN IN 3 MONTHS, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ENSLAVED AT THE MOMENT SHOULD NOT HAVED BEEN.

The war lasted years, so if it lasted 3 months it would have been more efficient ;)

No, what I am saying is I am not really arguing the war was not just, I just find it amusing when a conservative says lets invade X because people are being killed liberals scoff, yet in the civil war they seem to have a change in heart.


3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!

BTW, that stuff above made me LOL (in a good and bad way)

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.

That makes no sense. It was a Liberal that sent us to BOTH world wars. It was a Liberal that sent us into Korea. It was a Liberal that sent us to Vietnam. It's a Liberal that has us in Afghanistan and intervened in Libya. When it comes to war, there is no divide between conservatives and liberals, they're all mutually war hawks when the crisis fits their cause.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:18:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

States rights. Slavery would have died of natural causes anyway.

Well considering that it was spreading, I doubt it. Plus, THE SLAVES AT THAT TIME HAD RIGHTS. "IT WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAYS IS NOT AN EXCUSE." MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED IN 100 YEARS OR EVEN IN 3 MONTHS, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ENSLAVED AT THE MOMENT SHOULD NOT HAVED BEEN.

The war lasted years, so if it lasted 3 months it would have been more efficient ;)

No, what I am saying is I am not really arguing the war was not just, I just find it amusing when a conservative says lets invade X because people are being killed liberals scoff, yet in the civil war they seem to have a change in heart.


3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!

BTW, that stuff above made me LOL (in a good and bad way)

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.

Actually many liberals support intervention for humanitarian purposes, such as Liberal Hawks, selective engagement liberals, and Clinton-Doctrine Liberals.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:16:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:55:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies

Was there really a point to this troll thread?

LMAO at #3. Bad Radical Republicans for wanting to end slavery!

A.) Civil War was not over slavery
Strawman. The Radical Republicans wanted to end slavery even if that was not the official reason for which it was fought.
B.) I didn't mentioned slavery, so stop straw manning

You said that the government wanted to implement socialistic policies. Ending slavery is a socialistic policy.
This is a bunch of nonsensical ad homs. What makes a society controlled by a slew of aristocrats better than one controlled by a civilian state?

Another straw man

This isn't a straw man. You are presuming something is bad because socialists like it. That's called an ad hom. You are the one strawmanning.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:18:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

States rights. Slavery would have died of natural causes anyway.

Well considering that it was spreading, I doubt it. Plus, THE SLAVES AT THAT TIME HAD RIGHTS. "IT WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAYS IS NOT AN EXCUSE." MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED IN 100 YEARS OR EVEN IN 3 MONTHS, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ENSLAVED AT THE MOMENT SHOULD NOT HAVED BEEN.

The war lasted years, so if it lasted 3 months it would have been more efficient ;)

Alright then. Since it was ok to last three months, can I personally enslave you for that time? I get all the rights slavemasters got in the 1800s, including the right to kill you.
No, what I am saying is I am not really arguing the war was not just, I just find it amusing when a conservative says lets invade X because people are being killed liberals scoff, yet in the civil war they seem to have a change in heart.


3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy. Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!

BTW, that stuff above made me LOL (in a good and bad way)

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.


North Korea in the Korean War, North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, Soviet China in the Chinese civil war, and the Federal Government in the US civil war

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

How did you get that from what I said?

3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy.
Our economy does not depend on jobless people, it depends on employees, and their employers.
Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!
can you prove that?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:18:12 PM, Contra wrote:
DantT, states rights are almost synonymous with slavery.

cough*George Wallace*cough

The Civil War was'n't over slavery you said? Then what was it over?

Lincoln would have traded the emancipation of slaves for the reunion of the Confederacy. While Lincoln believed slavery was immoral, he was not an abolitionist.

The war was whether or not states have the right to secede from the Union. The Union's goals were to bring those States back in.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:28:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:10:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies:

I find that to be especially true of East and West Germany. ZING!!!!!

The rule only applies to North and South Wars, like Vietnam
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:35:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:20:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.

That makes no sense. It was a Liberal that sent us to BOTH world wars. It was a Liberal that sent us into Korea. It was a Liberal that sent us to Vietnam. It's a Liberal that has us in Afghanistan and intervened in Libya. When it comes to war, there is no divide between conservatives and liberals, they're all mutually war hawks when the crisis fits their cause.

No, liberals are generally against wars. The wars thy started had major splits in their ideology, and they are opposed to many of the current wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:28:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies:

I find that to be especially true of East and West Germany. ZING!!!!!

The rule only applies to North and South Wars, like Vietnam

Korea
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:37:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:35:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:20:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Its funny, liberals hate all wars, except the civil war.

That makes no sense. It was a Liberal that sent us to BOTH world wars. It was a Liberal that sent us into Korea. It was a Liberal that sent us to Vietnam. It's a Liberal that has us in Afghanistan and intervened in Libya. When it comes to war, there is no divide between conservatives and liberals, they're all mutually war hawks when the crisis fits their cause.

No, liberals are generally against wars. The wars thy started had major splits in their ideology, and they are opposed to many of the current wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

ideological stereotype is all that is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:18:12 PM, Contra wrote:
DantT, states rights are almost synonymous with slavery.

No they are not. State's rights are synonymous with the 10th amendment. Furthermore I was not only talking about the US.

cough*George Wallace*cough

wasn't he a Democrat?
The Civil War was'n't over slavery you said? Then what was it over?

It was over a number of things, one of the things was Nationalism. The Republican party was Nationalist back than. Another thing was culture. The North was industrial, and urbanized, while the south was agricultural and rural; also the south and north were religiously divided, and many historians referred to the civil war as a religious war.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:35:59 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:28:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:10:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies:

I find that to be especially true of East and West Germany. ZING!!!!!

The rule only applies to North and South Wars, like Vietnam

Korea

North Korea is communists and unionists
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:27:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:03:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/15/2012 4:50:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation

Those dang patriots, wanting a united country.


North Korea in the Korean War, North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, Soviet China in the Chinese civil war, and the Federal Government in the US civil war

You are correct here.

2.) wants a more centralized government

I know right? Let's allow slavery and work on corn farms.

How did you get that from what I said?

It was for humor


3.) imposes socialistic policies

We should let the poor people get a job. Ignore the fact that our economy depends on these people, just call them lazy.
Our economy does not depend on jobless people, it depends on employees, and their employers.

The present American economy requires a large amount of low wage jobs. Cleaning cars, cleaning houses, caring for children, picking vegetables, fast food, waiting on tables, doing heavy labor, gardening, clerks, checking groceries, etc. To support the 3/4ths of our population, the quarter workforce must work hard and be paid low wages. They perform tedious, unsafe and physically demanding jobs to support the middle, upper middle, and upper class lifestyle.

It is a myth that all the people can get educated and lift themselves up by themselves. Even if all of the present lower tier workers became upper tier, we would still need a quarter of the population doing the tedious and unsafe tasks such as cleaning the house, taking care of the children, etc. Our economy absolutely relies on hard working people whose pay does not reflect their contribution to our economy. That is why our economy improves bottom-up. It is not always the employer's fault, they usually cannot afford to pay a worker a higher wage to acknowledge their contribution to the economy overall. To reward these low income, hard workers, we need a negative income tax.

The least they deserve is adequate health care, full access to education, decent housing, and adequate nutrition.

Once we have a fair, social safety net that promotes individualized improvement for real, then we can start talking about the fairness of our economy. A welfare state could help this if used carefully.

Never mind the fact that Adam Smith supported the progressive tax and the living wage, that's Socialism!
can you prove that?

Living Wage: http://www.highbeam.com...

Progressive Income Tax:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ehow.com...

I wish I could see how you market fundamentalists react to this reality >:D
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:41:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Funny you should mention. The northern hemisphere has essentially all the highest developed and free countries in the world. While the southern hemisphere is filled with most of the third world countries and dictatorships.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 5:38:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/15/2012 5:18:12 PM, Contra wrote:
DantT, states rights are almost synonymous with slavery.

No they are not. State's rights are synonymous with the 10th amendment. Furthermore I was not only talking about the US.


cough*George Wallace*cough

wasn't he a Democrat?

If he was, I would probably be freaked out.

The Civil War was'n't over slavery you said? Then what was it over?

It was over a number of things, one of the things was Nationalism. The Republican party was Nationalist back than. Another thing was culture. The North was industrial, and urbanized, while the south was agricultural and rural; also the south and north were religiously divided, and many historians referred to the civil war as a religious war.

Yeah the Republicans were heavy supporters of jingoism. The issue of slavery brought up state's rights, which also effected trade issues and therefore economic issues, which caused the Civil War. Chain reaction.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you noticed that, when ever a country is drawn into a civil war, it is always the north who'

1.) invades the south wanting to reunite the nation
2.) wants a more centralized government
3.) imposes socialistic policies:

I find that to be especially true of East and West Germany. ZING!!!!!

The rule only applies to North and South Wars, like Vietnam:

It certainly looks coincidental to me, but then, I can only think of 3 cases (Korea, Vietnam, and the US Civil War).

Are you asserting that it's not a coincidence, and if so, what is the cause of this phenomenon?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, liberals are generally against wars. The wars thy started had major splits in their ideology, and they are opposed to many of the current wars.:

Is that a personal defect to think that war should always be a last resort?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)