What exactly do republicans have to offer blacks?

[ding]

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

how droll.

The whole and entire concept of natural rights, precludes that.

Morals are just opinions, right?

it must include some respect for authority.

Why?

 

[hadit]

He claims the law providing unemployment benefits is not applied equally because it requires you to have been laid off from a job before you can get the benefit. He literally wants anyone who simply decides not to work a job at all be paid.

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

Only people who appeal to ignorance of capitalism for their socialism on a nation basis, say that.

What part of human nature do you think would make Socialism work when it has to forced on the people by law? I noticed that you didn't actually say anything about what I posted.

 

[beagle9]

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

Only people who appeal to ignorance of capitalism for their socialism on a nation basis, say that.

What part of human nature do you think would make Socialism work when it has to forced on the people by law? I noticed that you didn't actually say anything about what I posted.

Yeah people usually have a problem being punished for the slackness of others in life. Socialism is only a form of governmental control in order to keep a method of this type of government in power by way of this control. The free citizen's in this nation must resist this idea that they (the leftist) have to go fully socialist, and do so by any constitutional method given us to use under the law of this land.

Be aware people, be very aware these days. Keep watching the signs.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective.

Honestly, if there is no god of the Bible then abortion is not immoral.

It’s just one life not becoming viable on its own.

It would be really sad to get an abortion but not immoral. You disagree.

Some people believe it would be immoral to kill anyone for any reason. Even self defense. You and I of course disagree with them.

You probably think it’s immoral to date a third cousin or marry your sister.

To watch porn.

To not pay taxes.

 

[Unkotare]

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

 

[sealybobo]

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

I disagree

 

[sealybobo]

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

Is it immoral to not believe in god?

 

[sealybobo]

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

Is it immoral when you take a finger in the ass by a woman?

What about from another man?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

You axeually be crazy Russian, nooo?

 

[sealybobo]

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

You axeually be crazy Russian, nooo?

I believe many Christian white fathers would say it’s immoral if their daughter married a black or Asian man.

 

[sealybobo]

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

Only people who appeal to ignorance of capitalism for their socialism on a nation basis, say that.

What part of human nature do you think would make Socialism work when it has to forced on the people by law? I noticed that you didn't actually say anything about what I posted.

Some say making us pay income tax is wrong and unconstitutional and our system is rigged. That’s capitalism.

Maybe the best ism but still just another ism

 

[Unkotare]

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

You axeually be crazy Russian, nooo?

I believe many Christian white fathers would say it’s immoral if their daughter married a black or Asian man.

Only if they were racists like you democrats.

 

[Unkotare]

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

Is it immoral when you take a finger in the ass by...

...another man?

Nobody wants to know what you’re doing on the weekend, Bobobrainless.

 

[Unkotare]

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

I disagree

Because you don’t understand the term.

 

[OldLady]

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

It is not more cost effective because, as all good socialists do, you don't account for human nature. When you incentivize someone to not work, they will not work, even when they can. They then become a drain on society instead of being productive. When you have more people taking from society than producing, it collapses. We've seen that happen over and over again.

Socialism only works when people are willing to enter into it and are willing to continue producing. When they stop, it fails, usually violently. Short term help, like unemployment compensation until you get back to work, or time limited welfare until you can find work, do help society, because it keeps people going until they can provide for themselves again. What you want doesn't do that. It makes people dependent on continued societal largess.

Only people who appeal to ignorance of capitalism for their socialism on a nation basis, say that.

What part of human nature do you think would make Socialism work when it has to forced on the people by law? I noticed that you didn't actually say anything about what I posted.

The extremes of any ideology tend to not work. Pure democracy and pure communism are concepts that don't take into account the fact that they have to work with human beings. Human nature is an unalterable monkey wrench in the machinery, no matter what. What DOES seem to work, and what we have already done as have all successful societies, is use a bit of both. Capitalism allows for human acquisitiveness and creative energy. Socialism allows for sharing with the less fortunate, keeping everyone minimally happy. Even the ancient Romans gave the poor in Rome free bread. Democratic socialism works just fine.

 

[MAGAman]

I believe many Christian white fathers would say it’s immoral if their daughter married a black or Asian man.

How many did you ask?

I understand you said "believe" not "know". That's a big difference.

Perhaps your belief would change if you had more facts.

Truth is, I know parents that think mixed race marriages are impracticable and ostracize their grandchildren because of their mixed race. Now less than years ago.

 

[ding]

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective.

Honestly, if there is no god of the Bible then abortion is not immoral.

It’s just one life not becoming viable on its own.

It would be really sad to get an abortion but not immoral. You disagree.

Some people believe it would be immoral to kill anyone for any reason. Even self defense. You and I of course disagree with them.

You probably think it’s immoral to date a third cousin or marry your sister.

To watch porn.

To not pay taxes.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[beagle9]

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

I disagree

Because you don’t understand the term.

Let him do something immoral, and then suffer the consequences of it, then he will understand why that moral boundary should have been held. The ignoring of the consequences is what has become a major problem these days, and it blurrs the lines based on lies and excuses used to cover up those consequences as if they are a figment of someone's imagination. Well I say to those who try to say that moral guidelines are a myth, then they need to visit hospitals, AAA, and drug rehab centers to try and convince those people that touching a hot stove is perfectly normal and alright.

 

[ding]

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.

What is wrong with taking the Darwinian view of survival of the fittest and fuck my fellow man. In fact, couldn't it be argued that it is better to let them darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possibly?

That’s why I like abortion.

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective.

Honestly, if there is no god of the Bible then abortion is not immoral.

It’s just one life not becoming viable on its own.

It would be really sad to get an abortion but not immoral. You disagree.

Some people believe it would be immoral to kill anyone for any reason. Even self defense. You and I of course disagree with them.

You probably think it’s immoral to date a third cousin or marry your sister.

To watch porn.

To not pay taxes.

Standards are not subjective. Humans are subjective.

 

[ding]

I know that's why you do. You don't believe in morals.

How do you believe in morals? I believe morals exist of course but they are subjective........

Morality is, by definition, universal. If you think it is subjective, you are talking about something else.

I disagree

Because you don’t understand the term.

Let him do something immoral, and then suffer the consequences of it, then he will understand why that moral boundary should have been held. The ignoring of the consequences is what has become a major problem these days, and it blurrs the lines based on lies and excuses used to cover up those consequences as if they are a figment of someone's imagination. Well I say to those who try to say that moral guidelines are a myth, then they need to visit hospitals, AAA, and drug rehab centers to try and convince those people that touching a hot stove is perfectly normal and alright.

Exactly. Show me a man who says morals are subjective and I'll show you a man who cries like a baby when he is treated unfairly. When that happens his behaviors tell us that he sure as hell does believe that morals are universal and that everyone should agree that he was treated unfairly.