Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Entitlements - what's so bad about them?
Jon
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 122 of 138 (724499)
04-17-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by marc9000
04-14-2014 8:08 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
Here is one of his many essays that address those who seek to do things like redistribute wealth.
You are correct to refer to it as REdistribution, because that is indeed exactly what it would be: a distribution of the wealth BACK to those to whom it rightfully belongs as a product of their labor and creative energies.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 04-14-2014 8:08 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 123 of 138 (724706)
04-19-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Theodoric
04-16-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
marc9000 writes:
we have several here who are trying to use figures to convince themselves that the U.S. government was bigger in the 1950's than it is today!
Please show where this was said.
Message 105
quote:
I find it ironic that conservatives often talk about how wonderful the country was in the 1950s. Yet during that timeframe, the tax system was heavily progressive, going as high as 90% on top income tax earners. Additionally, there were far more subsidies for things like education. Tuitions were far lower and were actually free for state residents.
So if marc is asserting we should go back to those philosophies, I could not agree more.
Oh, and unions had far more influence in the 1950s as well.
marc9000 writes:
That Eisenhower, a respected former WW2 military general, would somehow be comparable to the arrogance and increases in the size and scope of government of this current joke of an administration
Please explain what was said and why it is not correct.
Message 104
quote:
If Eisenhower was President today, I expect he'd get about the same criticism as Obama does.
Why isn't this correct? Uh, if you don't know the difference between Eisenhower and Obama I'm afraid I don't have time to help you tonight.
marc9000 writes:
Again, who decides what to do about it?
The people, through congress. Have you never read the Constitution?
Have you ever read Federalist Paper #10? What it says is contained in the limits and authorizations of the constitution.
quote:
No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.
Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia
marc9000 writes:
If we further soak the top 3%, will 4% thru 10% also not get soaked? 10% thru 20%?
Strawman much.
Strawman? You don't see any similarities at all between the top few percentage brackets of wealthy people?
The 1% are not innovators. If you think they are provide some support.
If they're not stealing their money, if they're not getting it from taxpayers, then someone must be voluntarily giving it to them. If they get it from voluntary actions of free markets, then it's really none of my business exactly how they get it. If you think it needs to be taxed from them because they have too much and do nothing to earn it, then it's up to you to provide support for your position.
The 1% take few risks. The game is rigged heavily in their favor.
How is it rigged? By a big government? Why is it that evolutionists believe that the solution to big government corruption is more big government?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 04-16-2014 9:16 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 04-27-2014 11:30 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 124 of 138 (724707)
04-19-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
04-17-2014 8:11 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You keep talking about the rich in glowing terms as the innovators and producers whose fabulously wealthy existence we should all be grateful for and in awe of......
I don't automatically hate them because they have more than me. Since what people make in free markets is none of my business, I don't accuse them of anything, or expect them to give anything to me.
Profits as a share of GDP in almost all western countries are at record highs, along with executive pay while real wages for the majority stagnate or even fall.
Pay for politicians and bureaucrats in the U.S. are at record highs as well.
What on Earth leads you to conclude that those enjoying these record profits and executive payouts are the most personally productive and innovative? Where do you get this idea from?
In free markets, that's the only way money can be obtained. It doesn't grow on trees in only the yards of the wealthy.
This notion that simply being rich makes one a "wealth creator" or is evidence of personal innovation is patently absurd. But it seems to lie at the heart of your argument here.
Your argument seems to be that a few people get money while doing nothing to earn it, or have never done anything to earn it. Seems pretty absurd to me, unless you can show me how that works.
A healthy, educated workforce with a safety net that makes things like losing ones job or getting ill a temporary setback rather than a tragedy from which it is impossible to recover to live a fully productive life - These things benefit the whole economy in the long run. Add in investment in infrastructure and more generally the use of public finds to create an environment in which businesses can thrive, innovation can occur and wealth can be created such that all in society, rather than an elite few, can benefit. That should be the aim....... No?
The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done, so it leaves it to the states, or to the people, free to address those things privately, with things like private charities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2014 8:11 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by saab93f, posted 04-20-2014 5:00 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2014 10:38 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-26-2014 10:08 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 125 of 138 (724708)
04-19-2014 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by marc9000
04-11-2014 8:28 PM


Solutions for what? ...
Social discontent due to disenfranchisement, inequality and injustice?
The best way for them to react to unjust corporations is stop buying its products. Not possible in the case of oil companies, power companies, auto companies? Maybe it would be possible, if government wouldn't regulate out competition for these entrenched monsters.
Certainly we can stop the tax breaks they enjoy to the point of not paying ANY taxes while you and I carry the government on our shoulders.
Tax them (as they were in the 50's with Eisenhower) and take some of that burden back off the working people.
I don't claim to know what a level playing field is for every company in every situation. ...
Just simply paying equal wages for work of equal value would mean you don't need to know any more.
... But just going by life's experiences, I know that women sometimes appreciate the flexibility to take off work for a while for things like childbirth, taking care of a sick child, working from home, keeping irregular hours, many other things that working mom's appreciate ...
And I've known men to appreciate similar benefits. I certainly did when I lived in Canada (and had two weeks more vacation ... )
... When government strips companies and their employees the ability to negotiate these things among themselves, companies are going to do the logical thing, hire more, (or all) men, and leave the women unemployed. Then the unemployed women get a handout, and vote for Democrats!
And I fail to see how it is logical to hire more men at the pay rate men get than to hire women at the same rate ... can I have some of what you are smoking?
It IS the issue, government mandates controlling it affects everyone, the prices of goods and services everyone has to pay for, and the companies who produce them.
The cost to raise Wallmart wages from ~$7/hr to ~$11/hr would mean a 1.4% rise in cost of products sold. Costco pays ~$15/hr and makes more profits -- care to speculate how?
It's not the government's business to involve itself in this type of thing. It's not constitutional, and it's far from being the only problem that many people must deal with daily in their private lives.
It's unconstitutional to protect people from discrimination and injustice? Really?
But you're advocating the opposite! The authoritarianism of government is what you advocate, as opposed to the un "authorized" freedom of working, running a business etc on one's own decisions, not decisions from government. They're free to base those decisions on any religion they want, or no religion at all.
How many of those businesses are run as democracies and how many are run as mini-kingdoms?
What I'm advocating is that justice, freedom and equality are just as relevant in the workplace as they are in the government of this country founded as it is on the principles of freedom, justice and equality.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, people can easily compare the liberty and constitutionalism they advocate as opposed to the ever increasing government authoritarianism of Obama.
And what they advocate is rather impractical in this day and age, especially when they are bought by the Koch brothers.
They can also easily be compared to Bush II and Cheney's rush to war and the expansion of government they instigated.
Can you compare Schrubbia to Obama?
You do realize that deregulation resulted in the economic fiasco meltdown, and that the Bush tax cut entitlements to the rich resulted in massive loss of government income while their wars resulted in massive increase in government costs?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by marc9000, posted 04-11-2014 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 126 of 138 (724709)
04-19-2014 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by marc9000
04-11-2014 9:07 PM


Re: Dear Faith, and Coyote, and Marc9000 ...
I've come to the conclusion over many years that almost no one from either political side has much comprehension of the thought processes from the other side. ...
And I agree. I thoroughly fail to understand how anyone could have voted to re-elect Bush II unless they were blind witless gullible followers of a mythological fantasy about a republican party that no longer exists. When he was re-elected I apologized to people on these threads where I had impugned their level of intelligence ... because I had rather obviously overestimated the average intelligence of the American people ...
... Sometimes I hear a talk show host like Limbaugh claim that they understand how liberals operate, but I can tell that he's often just as mystified as me about how they can possibly say the things they say.
Well I can guaranteed that Limbaugh absolutely fails to understand the basic precepts of progressive thought. His response to the idea that women should be treated equal to men is to call them feminazis, and he insults anyone who doesn't think like he does, just as what he says insults the intelligence of anyone who listens to him.
What I come to understand (imho) is that the republican party is built and sustained by appeal to emotion (to the point of ignoring facts) while the progressive movement is built and sustained by appeal to reason and the expectation that other people are reasonable.
Certainly I cannot explain how people can vote against their own self interest, electing people that want to turn the clock back several centuries rather than move forward to greater equality and justice and the freedom that comes from respect and honoring of everyones basic human rights.
I don't see how you can say that it makes no sense when I point out that government regulations are evenly applied across the board, that greedy business owners, as well as honest business owners, are all required to succumb to government regulations in the same way.
Are you saying that some laws should apply more to some and less to others???
If you want to deal with greedy business owners, then the issue is just and equitable treatment of workers, treating workers with respect and honoring of their basic human rights.
This would start with establishing a living minimum wage -- because if you can't afford that then you can't afford to employ people without stealing from them, and perhaps you should not be operating that business.
Certainly the rest of us should not be expected to pick up the slack (foodstamps, medicaid) while the greedy business owners claim an inequitable profit for their own -- what entitles them to such behavior?
Listen to Ed Shultz sometime, James Carville. It IS hate.
And I conclude that you don't really know what hate is.
A company that had been bought out by a branch, so it became a branch. That's what I said, and you still didn't explain the rationale behind why a company would reward money loss and failure. (only the government does that, and there's a reason, it does it for Democrat votes)
Because what they did made more money for the parent company -- how do you think Baine Capital \ Romney made so much money from buying companies and closing them down? They sucked every dollar they could out, put it in their pocket and walked away.
When you start a small company you end up doing a lot of jobs because there is no one else to do them. When you hire some to do some of those jobs are you entitled to pay them less than you would pay yourself to do that job?
When you hire people to do work you cannot do or are not qualified to do are you entitled to pay them less than you pay yourself?
When you start a partnership are you entitled to pay your partner less than you pay yourself?
If both involved parties agree to it, YES! It's not the government's, or the general public's business.
And that is a typical difference between your "compassionate" conservatism and my self-interested progressivism: you think you are somehow entitled to rob workers and I don't.
Curiously I would like to think that I was shocked by this last bit of response ... but I'm not. I'm too jaded now, too aware of how sociopathic a lot of conservatism is ....

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by marc9000, posted 04-11-2014 9:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(7)
Message 127 of 138 (724730)
04-20-2014 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by marc9000
04-19-2014 7:55 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done, so it leaves it to the states, or to the people, free to address those things privately, with things like private charities.
This is what I find totally odd. The staunchest xians are more often than not the least compassionate, bordering on psychopathy. Totally void of empathy or anything that they shout out loud as being the attributes of their so called Religion of Piece(tm).
In my country a child falling seriously ill cannot ruin a family - for me that is more in the lines of compassion than your advocating dog-eat-dog world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 128 of 138 (724748)
04-20-2014 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by marc9000
04-19-2014 7:55 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done
Apparently you believe that the constitution does not simply enumerate federal powers, but that it also enumerates which areas of concern the government may address. While that's clearly wrong, it hardly matters because the constitution does not define things like General Welfare and Commerce in any way that limits the federal government to addressing things other than Post Roads and a Standing Army.
And your description of the constitution seems to ignore the fourteenth amendment which specifically charges the federal government with acting to prevent discrimination. It actually turns out that the founders never believed reference in the Declaration of Independence really applied to all men, and that only the near destruction of the union informed us of the evil underlying that. For predictable reasons conservatives simply hate the 14th amendment and never speak about the historical reasons why it exists.
And whenever a conservative starts screeching about the 9th and 10th amendments, you know he's off track. All they know is that those amendments addresses some limit on federal power but they never discuss them in terms of their actual text. Because unlike amendments 1-8 the text of the ninth and tenth put absolutely no limits on any power listed in Article 1, Section 8.
As for historical limits on the General Welfare among the founding fathers we can note that Hamilton and Madison disagreed over the matter, with Hamilton's view prevailing in the early part of this countries history and being later repudiated, before being reaccepted in the early 1900s. The argument that Hamilton's view is non-traditional or unconstitutional is simply without substance or merit.
I listen to NC republicans ranting about how the state government should be able to outlaw the use of contraceptives. We should understand from that that conservatives talk about freedom and limits on federal power are just fradulent, because they are happily willing to endorse tyranny on a state level.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 10:51 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 129 of 138 (725371)
04-26-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by NoNukes
04-20-2014 10:38 AM


Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads
Congratulations Clive, you made into Wikipedia ...
Bundy standoff - Wikipedia
quote:
The Bundy Standoff
A 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy in southeastern Nevada over unpaid grazing fees eventually developed into an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement. The dispute began in 1993 when grazing rules were changed and Bundy refused to pay the new bills to the US government for his cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. In 1998, Bundy was prohibited from grazing his cattle on the Bunkerville Allotment by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy.[2] In July 2013, the BLM complaint was supplemented when the George Court ordered that Bundy refrain from trespass on federally administered land in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County.[3]
In early April 2014 after years of violations of multiple court orders, the BLM began rounding up all cattle that were trespassing on the land. They were confronted by protesters and armed supporters of Bundy and eventually backed down.
And Faux Noise commentators fell all over themselves trying to be the most outspoken on how he was defending some basic rights. They whipped this up into a major event, drooling over how it could turn into another Waco conflagration, and telling people to go support Clive because the Bureau of Land Management had overstepped their legal authority, etc etc etc.
So a bunch of militia types -- people known to belong to militias and some other "sympathizers" -- took their assault rifles and automatic rifles to set up a confrontation with the feds ... vowing to fight to the death if need be to defend Clive ...
Gun totting thugs breaking the law and using guns are no different than gangs imho.
Until he made some racist comments ... about blacks living on govt subsidies no doing anything ...
quote:
After Bundy commented about whether African-Americans would be "better off as slaves", a number of Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported Bundy forcefully condemned his remarks.
Now it turns out that not only was Clive Bundy stealing in grazing his cattle on federal land without paying grazing fees ...
Those grazing fees are heavily subsidized by the US Govt: private landowners charge considerably more, the State of Nevada charges more.
So he is a "Welfare Cowboy" making millions off using the US land and feeling entitled to do so without payment of the legal subsidized grazing fees.
He is a hypocrite, a thief, a bigot and a thug: is that what it takes to be a hero to the right?
Is he entitled to special treatment?
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2014 10:38 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ramoss, posted 04-26-2014 5:25 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 133 by Omnivorous, posted 04-26-2014 8:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-26-2014 9:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 130 of 138 (725384)
04-26-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
04-26-2014 10:51 AM


Re: Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads
Of course he is privilaged to special treatment for breaking the law.
He is not an illegal immigrant you see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 10:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by hooah212002, posted 04-26-2014 5:43 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 7:52 PM ramoss has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 131 of 138 (725386)
04-26-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ramoss
04-26-2014 5:25 PM


Re: Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads
He is not an illegal immigrant you see.
No, he's wealthy and white. Wealthy and White can do no Wrong.

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ramoss, posted 04-26-2014 5:25 PM ramoss has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 138 (725391)
04-26-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ramoss
04-26-2014 5:25 PM


Re: Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads
Of course he is privilaged to special treatment for breaking the law.
He is not an illegal immigrant you see.
Still he should be charged with some charges including, now, threatening federal employees.
But I don't expect there will be a rush to arrest him ...
... and it would be fitting if it was the county sheriff that did it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ramoss, posted 04-26-2014 5:25 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 133 of 138 (725394)
04-26-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
04-26-2014 10:51 AM


Re: Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads
RAZD writes:
Is he entitled to special treatment?
Yes. I have some in mind.
But first I want my damn rent. That land is my land.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 10:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ramoss, posted 04-27-2014 11:37 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 138 (725401)
04-26-2014 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
04-26-2014 10:51 AM


Re: Clive Bundy another temporary "hero" of the rabid talking heads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 10:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 135 of 138 (725404)
04-26-2014 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by marc9000
04-19-2014 7:55 PM


Your argument seems to be that a few people get money while doing nothing to earn it, or have never done anything to earn it. Seems pretty absurd to me, unless you can show me how that works.
They can inherit it. Take, for example, the Walton heirs. According to Wikipedia "In 2010, six members of the Walton family had the same net worth as either the bottom 28% or 41% of American families combined (depending on how it is counted". They didn't build Walmart. That was done by Sam and Bud Walton, their ancestors / in-laws. They just own shares in it. Christy Walton, for example, has a net worth of $36.7 billion. Can you explain to me what she did to earn that money apart from marrying John Walton, the son of Sam Walton?
The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done, so it leaves it to the states, or to the people, free to address those things privately, with things like private charities.
There are lots of things the U.S. Constitution doesn't address: how big the federal budget should be, how large the Army should be, how many people should sit on the Supreme Court, etc. This is not necessarily a sign that this is left up to the states or the people. Sometimes what it means is that it's left up to Congress to pass legislation on these subjects.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 138 (725449)
04-27-2014 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
04-19-2014 7:41 PM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
Why is it that evolutionists believe that the solution to big government corruption is more big government?
Evolusionist?
I thought it was liberal queers who wanted that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2014 7:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024