@averagejoe1 saidYet you do not want women to have the choice to have NO kids.
Kev, you mindless fool. If I work at a $20/hr job and have 4 kids, those are 2 choices I made.
@suzianne saidsuziman accidentally said something here and it's worth noting; 'making money'
Maybe so.
But it is never the authoritarians, no matter how many times they bring this up.
Maybe we need to get rid of the parasites on the system. The ones making money off the backs of others.
Not to be confused with printing bits of paper or as it is now shuffling some 0s and 1s around in a computer, but to literally make money, to create value, to create something that the money get's it's value from and can be based on. Goobermint bureaurats and pollies can never make the claim to the noble 'make money'. Beneficiaries and the homeless can never claim to 'make money',
Those that own the phrase, we salute you.
4 edits
@suzianne saidSCOTUS did not take away that right. So, you speak of personal preference...some are in in favor of abortion, some are against capital punishment, some like men swimming with women. Do you deny our rights to choose which way to go on such matters? You write as if we are wrong? Could you be wrong? If I say execute a man who kills a whole family on video, am I wrong? Is Shav wrong to say give him life?
Yet you do not want women to have the choice to have NO kids.
Could you respond to this simple paragraph, Suzianne? Become interesting.
PS: I am in favor of a woman having a choice to have no kids. We can agree on some things! I will even go so far to say that if a woman has to 'think about it', she should not have kids.
PSS: She can do what ever she wants to as long as it does not bother the produce or efforts of another human. It's her deal, Suzianne. And for the record, when I say something like 'people who are poor want to be poor", reflect back to people who cannot afford to have 4 kids, but have 4 kids. That person wants to be poor.
I am afraid that my common sense on this thread will be too much for you. Downer. Coluld have been a nice gambit.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
A clarification.....I see you are using the word choice as making a decision to abort a baby. I myself am using it to mean a choice to get pregnant.
@averagejoe1 saidIt’s whatever your society can afford, if you think you have the balance right between corporate profits and street level destitution and you don’t think multi billionaires who can afford stratospheric joy rides could contribute more to the society that they make their massive profits from then I guess them billionaires will be forever grateful to yes men like yourself joe
Why not $5000/month? I am trying to get your reasoning.
@kevcvs57 saidAn interesting perspective, you seem to think that there is a way to balance out wealth, for lack of a better word. If you take your thought to logical conclusion, are you saying what Kamala said, that ,,,,,"at the end of the day we will all end up in the same place."?
It’s whatever your society can afford, if you think you have the balance right between corporate profits and street level destitution and you don’t think multi billionaires who can afford stratospheric joy rides could contribute more to the society that they make their massive profits from then I guess them billionaires will be forever grateful to yes men like yourself joe
A good starting point for discussion. Or, what are you saying? Please avoid socialism, which has never worked, please allow for helping the 50M indigent and desparate, and take it from there. A fair request.
@AverageJoe1
Sounds like Kamala was referring to the graveyard. You seem to think homeless are all druggies and rapists and such. A lot of them are mentally ill but that doesn't feed into your prescribed ideas.
@sonhouse saidI seem to think? Where do you get that, Sonhouse. Please write like we conservatives do, and start maybe like saying.."AvJoe, I think that you consider homeless to be druggies and rapists and such. The reason I think that is........."
@AverageJoe1
Sounds like Kamala was referring to the graveyard. You seem to think homeless are all druggies and rapists and such. A lot of them are mentally ill but that doesn't feed into your prescribed ideas.
Surely you can do this. And i would like to know why you think it, of course, but more importantly, I would like for you to write posts that close. That way, we can respond in kind, normally. Do you see how difficult, for instance, that it would be to respond to the posts of Suzianne. One cannot get traction, nothing to grab onto.
The Roman Empire long observed a policy known as cura annonae, which distributed free bread to about 200,000 of Rome's adult male population. This was roughly about a quarter of Rome's population. Like the US today, Rome by the 2nd century AD had a large and ever-growing population of indebted or dispossessed citizens. Cura annonae was also practiced in other Roman cities such as Constantinople.
Equitable and sustainable land distribution practices were always a problem for Rome, just as in the modern US there is chronic instability caused by income inequality.
Of course, the ancient Romans understood something that today's MAGA moron will never truly grasp: however much welfare programs may be a bother to maintain, the alternative of contending with violent uprisings and the rotting heads of billionaires on pikes in the streets is a lot more costly.
1 edit
@soothfast saidPay people not to initiate force against you.
The Roman Empire long observed a policy known as cura annonae, which distributed free bread to about 200,000 of Rome's adult male population. This was roughly about a quarter of Rome's population. Like the US today, Rome by the 2nd century AD had a large and ever-growing population of indebted or dispossessed citizens. Cura annonae was also practiced in oth ...[text shortened]... iolent uprisings and the rotting heads of billionaires on pikes in the streets is a lot more costly.
That is threaten people with force to hand over their property.
Precisely the mafia rationale.
@wajoma saidSee, you may not like it, but it's reality: whether down on their luck fairly or unfairly, you get enough destitute people in your midst and all that's needed is a spark to get them to band together and enact new social policies (including the execution of billionaires).
Pay people not to initiate force against you.
That is threaten people with force to hand over their property.
Precisely the mafia rationale.
Your Ayn Rand fairyland world would not hold up particularly well against the empty bellies and hot rage that would be its perennial harvest.
You may now go back to your regularly scheduled hand-wringing about the failure of humans to take exclusion and exploitation in the teeth from cradle to grave without complaint, as envisioned by the feeble children's parables that seem to inform your socioeconomic spitballing.
@soothfast saidwhooosh
See, you may not like it, but it's reality: whether down on their luck fairly or unfairly, you get enough destitute people in your midst and all that's needed is a spark to get them to band together and enact new social policies (including the execution of billionaires).
Your Ayn Rand fairyland world would not hold up particularly well against the empty bellies and ho ...[text shortened]... as envisioned by the feeble children's parables that seem to inform your socioeconomic spitballing.
@suzianne saidSuzi: Maybe we need to get rid of the parasites on the system. The ones making money off the backs of others.
Maybe so.
But it is never the authoritarians, no matter how many times they bring this up.
Maybe we need to get rid of the parasites on the system. The ones making money off the backs of others.
By all means, start a thread on that. I'll be in it.