35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[bedowin62]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

um no. nobody cares what a left-wing class warfare, che Guevara wannabe says

 

[danielpalos]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

um no. nobody cares what a left-wing class warfare, che Guevara wannabe says

Why do you believe anyone cares what the clueless and Causeless on the Right say.

 

[whitehall]

Where is Salon coming from with the words "soul crushing"? Salon apparently survived the decline of pulp magazines and hired a lot of smart liberals to launch a break thru media blog. The point is that Salon isn't serious about a socialist revolution. Salon is in it for the almighty capitalist bucks. If Sanders' socialist revolution ever became a reality Salon is well aware that they would be one of the first casualties. Salon plays the game for the useful idiots in the democrat party who would probably be kept out of a Salon party function at gunpoint.

 

[danielpalos]

Like the shills for the Right are any better with their obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[whitehall]

Like the shills for the Right are any better with their obsolete propaganda and rhetoric.

Think about it dany. Salon ain't your friend. It's a hypocrite elitist hip blog site that wouldn't let you in the door on your best day and if Sanders' socialist revolution happened Salon knows they would be out of business so they tread a fine line and convince useful idiots that socialism is a good thing while they enjoy the incredible gifts of capitalism and keep your ass out at gunpoint.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, capitalism "died" in 1929. Where do you think we got our socialism from?

 

[Clementine]

Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.

It does increase wealth for the 1% which is who runs the republican party,who pays for the republican party to exist so the republican party members can make sure the fed gov stays off their backs to pay a fair share of taxes,pay livable wages,and to keep jobs here. Granted the fed gov isn't doing a very good job of any of those either but its better to have them do SOMETHING than allow the 1% free reign over things.

Dems are in bed with the 1%, too, so quit fooling yourself.

 

[GWV5903]

Dude, capitalism "died" in 1929. Where do you think we got our socialism from?

You have succeeded, it is official, your in a tie with Deany for the craziest member of USMB!!

Congratulations, it takes a special effort to accomplish this, especially since you're not that into achieving much, on your own that is...

 

[bedowin62]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, capitalism "died" in 1929. Where do you think we got our socialism from?

You have succeeded, it is official, your in a tie with Deany for the craziest member of USMB!!

Congratulations, it takes a special effort to accomplish this, especially since you're not that into achieving much, on your own that is...

Nothing but diversion; what a surprise for the Right who is to lazy to even come up with valid arguments but expect the least wealthy to work harder.

Why do you believe we have as much socialism today? What did the Capital Right do but Hoover-ville the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

 

[bedowin62]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

it probably wouuld hurt if it was true

i'll wait and see if you're a man enough to show where i did. or just sticking to you own meme and narrative; cowardly putting thoughts in the minds of others

 

[danielpalos]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

it probably wouuld hurt if it was true

i'll wait and see if you're a man enough to show where i did. or just sticking to you own meme and narrative; cowardly putting thoughts in the minds of others

Ok. do you believe social spending should be cut for the least wealthy if they don't work hard enough and make better lifestyle choices? Your "constituency" would like to know.

 

[bedowin62]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

it probably wouuld hurt if it was true

i'll wait and see if you're a man enough to show where i did. or just sticking to you own meme and narrative; cowardly putting thoughts in the minds of others

Ok. do you believe social spending should be cut for the least wealthy if they don't work hard enough and make better lifestyle choices? Your "constituency" would like to know.

seriously; why do you want substantive answers to incoherent babble?

"if they dont work hard enough"?????

who is going to be the judge of that?
you?

 

[bedowin62]

Just the clueless and the Causeless too lazy to acquire and possess them; but, hey, why not blame the least wealthy for being lazy.

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

it probably wouuld hurt if it was true

i'll wait and see if you're a man enough to show where i did. or just sticking to you own meme and narrative; cowardly putting thoughts in the minds of others

Ok. do you believe social spending should be cut for the least wealthy if they don't work hard enough and make better lifestyle choices? Your "constituency" would like to know.

seriously; why do you want substantive answers to incoherent babble?


you're so predictable i can predict your response; you're going to say my not giving you the answer you want to your idiotic question means i'm avoiding something

what a tool
honestly just pathetic
"if they dont work hard enough"?????

who is going to be the judge of that?
you?

 

[danielpalos]

except I didn't do that idiot

self-impressed loser blindly following your own narrative

accusing others of ignorance while yo wallow in it; too arrogant to see it

Does the truth hurt? Don't tell me you don't blame the least wealthy for "soaking up" social spending.

it probably wouuld hurt if it was true

i'll wait and see if you're a man enough to show where i did. or just sticking to you own meme and narrative; cowardly putting thoughts in the minds of others

Ok. do you believe social spending should be cut for the least wealthy if they don't work hard enough and make better lifestyle choices? Your "constituency" would like to know.

seriously; why do you want substantive answers to incoherent babble?


you're so predictable i can predict your response; you're going to say my not giving you the answer you want to your idiotic question means i'm avoiding something

what a tool
honestly just pathetic
"if they dont work hard enough"?????

who is going to be the judge of that?
you?

Nothing but diversion? The only reason I don't go back to actually look for your previous posts, merely to prove you bearing false witness, is due to a slow system.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe it is even sadder that you may have graduated from even tertiary education. Do they actually teach, begging the question.

Your point being? Socialism begins with a Social Contract; that is the Only point I am trying to make regarding socialism; the rest is simply bad management.

You use a lot of drugs, which has affected your ability to process information in an extremely negative way.

The theory of a social contract has nothing to do with socialism, it is simply a way of describing the formal and informal mores of a society. A constitution codifies certain aspects of the social contract into law, but certainly is not the social contract in and of itself.

Socialism begins with the desire of some to rule over others, and the desire of others to live without the responsibility for their own lives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure, here it is for the clueless and the Causeless; a social contract establishes Government. It really is that simple, except to the Right.

That is incorrect, a social contract does not establish governments,

You are incredibly ignorant and bandy about terms you don't understand.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, here it is for the clueless and the Causeless; a social contract establishes Government. It really is that simple, except to the Right.

That is incorrect, a social contract does not establish governments,

You are incredibly ignorant and bandy about terms you don't understand.

Yes, it does, simply Because I say so; and, if you don't know it; I am Right even when on the Left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, it does, simply Because I say so; and, if you don't know it; I am Right even when on the Left.

Ignorantly drooling "duz two" fails to make your point.

You have huffed far too much spray paint in your life to hold a rationed argument.

{
. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[3] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797) are among the most prominent of 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights; Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchial or parliamentary); Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.[4]}

Social contract - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia