UBI is simply just rebranded Socialism/Communism. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Don't ever forget it.  Furthermore money for nothing will pervert market signaling and create inflation and scarcity of the most in demand products, essentially bringing us full circle right back to where we started with haves and have nots. Has been proved wrong countless times, Just Look at countries like Denmark. Where students literally get paid to attend college and guess what? They have one of the highest literacy rates in the world. BTW Most UBI systems are being designed to help those who are "working" on low wages. You aren't getting paid for doing "nothing". It's a system for people who are struggling. There is a difference between free money and helping the struggling class... Oh has it been proven wrong? Please source. The results of inflation are very well documented and not up for debate by anyone with any credibility. Market signaling is also critical to a functional economy, this is also not under debate. Denmark had a high rate of literacy before UBI. Even if it did not, correlation does not equal causation. Additionally their literacy rate was never in question. There is no difference between free money and helping the middle class because they are both the same thing, just on different scales. Helping the middle class turns quickly into free money as politicians increase handouts to buy votes. Also Denmark is not Socialist, it is Capitalist. Without Capitalism none of this would be possible. |
|
|
|
No, of course not! This certainly doesn't turn every conservative into a potential suspect or elicit sympathy for the left casting them as victims as their own REAL violence is increasingly exposed, so very conveniently before mid terms. This doesn't serve the left AT ALL!
I guess this guy was smart enough to carry out a nationwide coordinated attack, all without blowing himself or anyone else up, but he is not smart enough to know that none of these people open their own mail, or that attacking Democrats just before midterms would have a contradictory affect to the ideology he supposedly holds.
It all makes perfect sense! He would have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
He definitely isn't smart. Sending a package without getting caught is pretty much impossible, particularly for someone already known to the authorities. He seems to be a registered Republican though and has a history of being a conspiracy nutjob. Why would he help Democrats? Did you see his ride? It was fucking pimped out to the max! Big surprise a stupid right wing crazy, I wonder if he early voted in the mid terms for "Trump" already LOL! Can't wait for the alex jones crowd to refute the DNA evidence that is 100% coming LOL. It never ceases to amaze me how much people think life is like movie scripts. The world is not as it presents itself. After a while, the media saturates your brain to the point that scripts seem more real than reality does. Nothing in life is ever this clearly spelled out from A to Z, especially in politics. This is a hand crafted tale designed to serve a specific purpose. |
|
|
|
So you don't really believe what you say? Nut up and support your words with actions. Put your money where your mouth is.
There is a difference between what I think will happen and what I am willing to wager will happen... Sometimes I think the Washington Generals will finally pull out a win but I wouldn't wager on it!!!!!!! 30 or I'll pass thanks. I get it, you don't really believe what you say.  |
|
|
|
Authorities have made an arrest in relation to this.
We will probably find out his political affiliations soon and potentially his motives.
No we won't, unless of course it supports the mainstream narrative. If it is anything else it will be buried like Las Vegas. I am not sure about this. There is very little information available in regards to the Vegas shooting and there are more than one MSM organization with compeating ideology. Like I said... buried. The Vegas shooter was linked with not only ISIS, but ANTIFA. No, of course not! This certainly doesn't turn every conservative into a potential suspect or elicit sympathy for the left casting them as victims as their own REAL violence is increasingly exposed, so very conveniently before mid terms. This doesn't serve the left AT ALL!
I guess this guy was smart enough to carry out a nationwide coordinated attack, all without blowing himself or anyone else up, but he is not smart enough to know that none of these people open their own mail, or that attacking Democrats just before midterms would have a contradictory affect to the ideology he supposedly holds.
It all makes perfect sense! He would have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
He definitely wasn't smart. Sending a package without getting caught is pretty much impossible, particularly for someone already known to the authorities. He seems to be a registered Republican though and has a history of being a conspiracy nutjob. Why would he help Democrats? I said the results helped Democrats, not that this man purposely helped them. I also clearly explained how this benefits them, and does not at all benefit conservatives, of which this man supposedly is. |
|
|
|
|
Watch how fast they put pressure on them to flip this decision around...
|
|
|
|
So there was no devious Democratic plot to subvert the midterms? Let me guess, mentally ill individual, harmless joke with some metal parts and wires, definitely not domestic terrorism. A law enforcement source told Fox News that the suspect is a white male in his 50s, a former New Yorker, who lives in Aventura, Florida, who had prior arrests for terroristic threats. Several of the packages went through a U.S. postal facility in Opa-locka, which is less than 10 miles from Aventura. https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-arrested-in-florida-in-connection-with-suspicious-packages-sent-to-democratsNo, of course not! This certainly doesn't turn every conservative into a potential suspect or elicit sympathy for the left casting them as victims as their own REAL violence is increasingly exposed, so very conveniently before mid terms. This doesn't serve the left AT ALL! I guess this guy was smart enough to carry out a nationwide coordinated attack, all without blowing himself or anyone else up, but he is not smart enough to know that none of these people open their own mail, or that attacking Democrats just before midterms would have a contradictory affect to the ideology he supposedly holds. It all makes perfect sense! He would have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! |
|
|
|
Early voting is setting records in all kinds of states. Early voting numbers are basically the same as the 2016 presidential election....
Does that help the dems or republicans?!
Traditionally early voting benefits Democrats, but every thing I have been reading is suggesting is there is potentially record turnout for Republican early voting, so we will see. People are starting to get wise to the voter shenanigans and want to leave as little potential for fraud as possible by voting early (and more importantly first). BTW, I will give you one last chance to put money on that "blue wave" Ya traditionally early and heavy turnout is a good sign for the dems in mid terms. With the turn out so far being equal to that of a presidential year I don't think it's as good a sign for dems as it would be traditionally. I think the early turn out isn't really going to tell us much other than people are voting LOL. I didn't know a wager was on offer! Define a blue wave, or IOW define the wager and I may be interested. I'm not interested in a large wager, nothing more than .01 BTC but the terms would ultimately dictate how much or if I would wager. Lets use your own terms. Dems are picking up 35 seats in the house dude, like it or not!!! Even if they don't get 35 they will take control of the house! For reference: Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives. As of October 2018, the Republican Party was in the majority, holding 235 seats to Democrats' 193 seats, with seven seats being vacant. Democrats will have to take 228 house seats or more for you to win. I am willing to wager the Democrats will not take 35 additional seats, or more in the house. 0.01 BTC is a reasonable amount. I am willing to leave it to either party to fulfill the wager based on trust if you are, no escrow needed. Do you accept these terms? I'm not sure I would wager on 35 seats tbh. I will do +30 seats for the dems so 223 seats for dems or more I win 222 seats or less for dems you win. No escrow needed bro, lmk if you like my change So you don't really believe what you say? Nut up and support your words with actions. Put your money where your mouth is. |
|
|
|
I don't understand they say they arrested someone but then later in the article say they have 24 teams looking for the culprit? I think it is safe to assume, given the scale of this event, it is likely there are multiple suspects. |
|
|
|
Early voting is setting records in all kinds of states. Early voting numbers are basically the same as the 2016 presidential election....
Does that help the dems or republicans?!
Traditionally early voting benefits Democrats, but every thing I have been reading is suggesting is there is potentially record turnout for Republican early voting, so we will see. People are starting to get wise to the voter shenanigans and want to leave as little potential for fraud as possible by voting early (and more importantly first). BTW, I will give you one last chance to put money on that "blue wave" Ya traditionally early and heavy turnout is a good sign for the dems in mid terms. With the turn out so far being equal to that of a presidential year I don't think it's as good a sign for dems as it would be traditionally. I think the early turn out isn't really going to tell us much other than people are voting LOL. I didn't know a wager was on offer! Define a blue wave, or IOW define the wager and I may be interested. I'm not interested in a large wager, nothing more than .01 BTC but the terms would ultimately dictate how much or if I would wager. Lets use your own terms. Dems are picking up 35 seats in the house dude, like it or not!!! Even if they don't get 35 they will take control of the house! For reference: Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives. As of October 2018, the Republican Party was in the majority, holding 235 seats to Democrats' 193 seats, with seven seats being vacant. Democrats will have to take 228 house seats or more for you to win. I am willing to wager the Democrats will not take 35 additional seats, or more in the house. 0.01 BTC is a reasonable amount. I am willing to leave it to either party to fulfill the wager based on trust if you are, no escrow needed. Do you accept these terms? |
|
|
|
Authorities have made an arrest in relation to this.
We will probably find out his political affiliations soon and potentially his motives.
No we won't, unless of course it supports the mainstream narrative. If it is anything else it will be buried like Las Vegas. |
|
|
|
who is playing with the top figures head now ? because to me i see it as another game or conspiracy to be able to get the better part of the country audience, distract and perform the real deal!! so for me am not really focused on what was sent but why was such a display done when its sure to get public awareness!! my Question remains what is the next play card?
The individual has gotten the first result
next!! should be what every security agencies should be anticipating
You make a very good point. In the security field this kind of behavior could be characterized as "probing" or eliciting a false alarm. It usually serves 2 main functions. To desensitize the targets/security forces for an actual attack in the hope that they will treat it carelessly next time, and to observe the response of the security forces to the act. Again the narrative is not yet clear, but this could be some type of probing here. That would suggest that there are bigger things to come. |
|
|
|
Early voting is setting records in all kinds of states. Early voting numbers are basically the same as the 2016 presidential election....
Does that help the dems or republicans?!
Traditionally early voting benefits Democrats, but every thing I have been reading is suggesting is there is potentially record turnout for Republican early voting, so we will see. People are starting to get wise to the voter shenanigans and want to leave as little potential for fraud as possible by voting early (and more importantly first). BTW, I will give you one last chance to put money on that "blue wave" |
|
|
|
I find people who call themselves Anarchists are usually just Socialists and they simply can't define either one. Communist dictators are well known to have supported Anarchism as a method of tearing down the existing system to make way for Communism. The two are inexorably linked.
It is funny when people label themselves but don't really get what it means what they are subscribing to. Ok, Anarchism or simply put chaos as a way to establish Communism as a solution, that has happened. But in my opinion Anarcho Communism is not practically possible. It's in the nature of people to want to own things. And how then if there is no rule of law can there be no private ownership, which Communism is by definition. Well put. I don't claim small communities of Anarchists or even Communists can't exist sustainably given the right circumstances. However Anarchism and Communism both leave themselves vulnerable to a power vacuum. As opposed to a leader leading in public accountable to them, they rule in secret accountable to no one, inevitably resulting in authoritarianism. |
|
|
|
It'a pretty funny that people link "conservipedia" as scientific evidence.
Holy shit, might as well just post an entire "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" as your argument.
Hey, guys, YOU'RE ALL WRONG BECAUSE *PEDIA says so - idiots from the right.
They don't even argue the merits of the science. They literally just spread misinformation and bullshit without actually reading or understanding the evidence.
People need to start paying attention to the sides. The side offering science evidence vs the side offering feelings.
I find it hilarious you lecture me about arguing the merits of science when literally all you just did was attack the source, without addressing a single one of its refutations, or my own for that matter. I explained my position, refuting yours, using simple language and provided sources to back it up. Now you try. |
|
|
|
And the sweeping it under the rug begins... "Some Suspected Mail Bombs Were Not Capable of Exploding, Others Yet to Be Analyzed, Officials Say" https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Mail-Bombs-Biden-De-Niro-Clinton-FBI-Obama-Florida-New-York-City-Delaware-Washington-Investigation-498562021.html?Notice not one official statement positively confirming actual explosives, only lots of liberties by the author as well as "sources" who remain unnamed. It seems certain users are entirely blind to reality. If you can't even piece together the victims of attacks or notice calls of violence from certain individuals, you're gonna have a rough time in the real world. Pretty bad when a single individual can literally call for violence, but no one holds that individual accountable. See, at points like this, I think we should hold those accountable for inciting violence. Do you think, without this news story, that an individual would do the same? Do you have an actual rebuke or just moral grandstanding and a series of character attacks ? |
|
|
|
It is always good to see new users providing valuable information rather than spamming. Try to add more of your own opinions though, not just links. Focus on providing value to the viewer and I am sure you will rank up in no time. |
|
|
|
|
Risk and reward are inherently linked, almost as if by the laws of physics. You can mitigate or rig systems to postpone the cost, but the bill always comes due one way or another. People like to imagine they can create systems where risk is removed from this scenario, but this is nothing but fantasy. Even if the infinite logistical problems could be resolved to this end, the human mind simply doesn't value things it gains with little to no cost to obtain. Once again we are back where we started. Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink.
This is not only a logistical issue but an existential one.
|
|
|
|
I can't help but guess your pillars of identity on the basis that you automatically think the entire concept of privilege is "stupid". Probably proves my point. Thinking this is stupid is highly indicative of privilege.
Or perhaps he supports equality of opportunity and has the good sense to know equality of outcome is impossible. No one has suggested equality of outcome but nice strawman. Oh but you have. You telling people to check their privilege shows very clearly you do not beleive in outcome of opportunity, because you think certain people should have limited opportunities to make up for the ones you think have more. It is at the very core nature of this privilege argument. Checking privilege doesn't limit anyone's opportunity. Its simply asking someone to acknowledge the struggles of those who do not share their identity. Its a demand for courtesy. its not saying "you don't get _________ because you have privilege". check noun \ˈchek \ Definition of check (Entry 1 of 3) 1 : exposure of a chess king to an attack from which he must be protected or moved to safety with his king in check 2a : a sudden stoppage of a forward course or progress : arrest the outbreak of war in 1939 gave a sudden check to the sculptor's work— Herbert Read b : a checking of an opposing player (as in ice hockey) 3 : a sudden pause or break in a progression the invaders coming in without a check 4 archaic : reprimand, rebuke 5 : one that arrests, limits, or restrains : restraint against all checks, rebukes, and manners, I must advance— William Shakespeare Yes, it has most definitely resulted in "you don't get _________ because you have privilege." Is it asking or is it demanding? Pick one. You can't even follow your own standards within a single paragraph. |
|
|
|
I "never seem interested" because you aren't discussing anything of substance. I keep asking you to fill out your ideas with specific strategies and methodologies, but you just keep telling me what you feel and how great your ideas are, and I just need to learn a little bit more to "get it". I gave you specific examples of the methodology in practice. I pointed you to the Bologna region to show the effectiveness of laws that promote cooperatives. That is specific and successful implementation of my ideas. No, you gave me examples of what you described as Socialism. I addressed your examples, and responded that nothing they were doing was being excluded under the rubric of Capitalism, and furthermore they REQUIRE Capitalism for this to even function. Even if this was an example (which it is not) it would still be a very tiny and regional implementation. Since when have power grabs been required to be "necessary" in order for them to happen? You are advocating for taking a large collective of resources and allow them to be managed by people who, by their nature are fallible, and will exploit this authority. The key is that socialism doesn't concentrate power over many into the hands of the few. It is unique a system that decentralizes power by attaching it to individual workers. Yes, some individuals will exploit their authority over themselves but that is the risk of individual liberty. This economic democracy makes power grabs more difficult than they would be in any other system. Oh it doesn't concentrate power? I feel much better now that I have your assurances. Is that the key, or is that something you just believe? It is a "unique" system that "decentralizes" power by "attaching it to individual workers". Really? How? How is it decentralized? What keeps these people operating for the common good and not for self interest? Exploit authority over themselves? What? What does that even mean? Does it really make power grabs more difficult? What evidence do you have to support this? I have about 100 years of history showing that it is in fact EXTREMELY VULNERABLE to power grabs. I keep bringing up authoritarianism, because there is NO WAY for Socialism/Communism/Marxism to operate long term WITHOUT authoritarianism. The two concepts are INEXORABLY LINKED. You can imagine it away, but the laws of physics, economics, and human psychology are going to operate in spite of your belief systems. The examples and ideas I have put forth are far less authoritarian than any other economic system. Cooperatives are literally workplace democracies while capitalism is authoritarian by nature. It all starts out as buttercups and rainbows, then reality catches up with the fantasy and resources have to be acquired. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY AUTHORITARIAN. You can't have collective resources without TAKING them from people by FORCE under Socialism. If they CHOSE to contribute it would just be a donation. Also are we talking about Socialism or cooperatives here, you seem to be shifting between the two as it serves your argument. Yes, we already do have a modern monetary system. A system built by Capitalism. A system which will inevitably collapse under Socialism because in a system where everyone gets what they need for free, there is no incentive to work. If people aren't working they aren't producing. If they aren't producing, there is nothing to buy. If there is nothing to buy what is the point of money? This may seem abstract to you but it is a very well established fact of economics. One of the purposes of socialism is to reduce unemployment to zero. If people are empowered to work with people in their community to start their own businesses, they will not only be able to produce what the community needs, but alienation, the thing that makes people hate work, would be reduced. Again, in your continued disinterest to discuss socialism, you have shifted to discussing welfare. At no point did I say anything about everyone getting what they need for free or people not working. Its almost like you have to throw bad suggestions into the discussion, just to have something to tear apart since the things being suggested are so difficult to disagree with. So the subsidies and grants you suggested earlier are not forms of hand outs? Could have fooled me. They still have to be paid for by some one, call it whatever you like. Are your suggestions really that difficult to disagree with? So far really you have told me over and over again what you believe, what you feel, and what you imagine Socialism to be, and very little of how you intent to implement this system in reality. Tell me, how do you "encourage" these cooperatives? "The means of production" is an extremely nebulous term that could mean quite literally anything. So workers should just be GIVEN the means of production (ie capital)? The means of production fairy flies by and grants them 3 productive wishes? How does this work? If they are working anyway to do this why can't they just do this within Capitalism? Other than motivating people with warm fuzzy feelings of equality and abundance what does Socialism have to offer ACTUALLY? This is the specific place where reading about Marcora law would completely answer your questions. They can just work within capitalism if they choose, but in a free economy, they would have the choice to sell their labor or own their labor. Think about a petty bourgeoisie profession like doctors under capitalism. They have the freedom to sell their labor to a large scale, private or public hospital or company like Kaiser, but they also have the FREEDOM to open their own practice and collaborate with other doctors to split the cost. Under socialism, that kind of option is not only available to the bourgeoisie class, but to every worker. For the fourth time, I already reviewed Marcora laws and responded to this suggestion SEVERAL times and refuted your premise of it being an example of a successful implementation of Socialism. Once again you make the arrogant assumption that I just need to read a little bit more to "get it". After all your ideas are quite advanced, progressive, and evolved, they might be very hard for a mere mortal such as myself to grasp. You on the other hand understand completely. Do doctors really have that freedom? I am not so sure. Socialized medical programs have kind of screwed that one up. HOW is it available? Again you jump to a conclusion with zero explanation of the methods to arrive there. Under capitalism, there is an alienation of labor. A worker works, and gets paid for their work and that is the end. Socialism eliminates that alienation by making every worker a business owner who has say over the direction of the company and a share of the surplus value that is extracted from their work.
In addition to eliminating alienation, socilaism also increases standard of living as income inequality is reduced, companies controled by workers are less likely to lay off workers during times of hardship, more likely to pay those workers (themselves) a fair salary to begin with, and less likely to do things that might harm the local environment or community (that they live in). An owner living on the other side of the planet but making authoritative decisions about production might not think twice about something like toxic pollution. Oh it increases the standard of living does it? Based on what data? Oh right, more assumptions. Is it not convenient at every corner everything just works out exactly as you had hoped under this hypothetical system? It is almost as if it is unrealistic and not based the real world. "...grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor." So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk. I love how you just casually throw in something that was never included as part of the idea (taking money from workers). A worker cooperative is literally a nonprofit organization so why shouldn't it be legally treated the same way? We give subsidies to all sorts of businesses already and massive bailouts for capitalists auto industry and finance. There isn't anything new here. Yet you did include it, and I explained in exact detail how this happens under YOUR ideas. THE TAX MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE TO FUND YOUR SUGGESTED PROGRAMS. Simply designating everyone nonprofit does not magically make the resources appear. This is completely circular logic on your part. I don't support bail outs, they are not Capitalist, and it is irrelevant to the topic because it is independent of your concepts of what Socialism is. It is nothing more than a red herring to distract from your obvious circular logic on funding. All these things you are suggesting require the taking of funds by force. If it was not with force it would just be called charity. No it is called monetary policy and does not involve taking anything by force. You just don't have an understanding of monetary theory and think the government has to tax before it can spend (its actually the other way around). You also probably think spending before taxing causes runaway inflation because you haven't thought about the economic activity that this particular spending will generate (taxable production). Calling it "monetary policy" doesn't magically make it not a tax. Furthermore I have more knowledge of monetary policy, economics, and banking in general than the vast majority of the population having spent thousands of hours educating myself on the subjects. You tell me I lack understanding though so it must be true! You just got done telling me that the taxes generated by inflation will cover these expenses. Please, take a basic economics course, then maybe remedial math. I believe you are insinuating that the monetary policy that you support under Socialism is one of printing more money correct? That is called inflation. It is a very basic and simple law of economics no one is disputing (but you of course). If you have a currency, and you print more of it, the buying power of the currency degrades. This results in everything costing more money to buy, and again we are back at square one with the haves and the have nots, only now the currency system is destroyed. This isn't some fringe theory, it is simple math and history that has been demonstrated pretty much since money has existed. Inflation is a tax on the currency holders because it robs the whole of buying power in order to create the new money. So you see, the resources must still come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the workers. Your premise fails under your own rubric. Also, forcing a worker to associate with a union they do not wish to associate with is a violation of freedom of association under the 1st amendment of The Bill of Rights. it is little more than an extortion scheme. If the union was so valuable people would fund it regardless. Unions are just a band-aid for capitalism. They aren't really what I want and do involve a bit of force because all capitalism involves force but that is what they do in scandanavia. they have sectoral bargaining to mix socialism and capitalism and a union agreement applies to the entire sector. Sweden doesn't even have a minimum wage. The government isn't telling people what to to be paid, but people are negotiating what they must be paid. The government is telling everyone to abide by that agreement though. Oh just A BIT of force? Oh well, in that case the ends justify the means right? I thought no force was required for Socialism! Oh I see, it is only because evil Capitalism is here, but once that bad ideology is gone the force will be out right? The government doesn't "tell" people what to do, they make laws and enforce them with penalties (ie force). You didn't address my point that it is a violation of the first amendment right to free association. Yes, it is exactly like religion. Socialism/Communism/Marxism are the gods of the secular world. I didn't ask about your faith or what you believe in. I asked you to explain EXACTLY how you expect to manifest this reality. So far you aren't advocating anything that hasn't been already tried over and over again and failed resulting in a holocaust. I'd love to hear about examples of it being tried but all you can probably come up with is state capitalism where the government dictates what and how is produced throughout the economy. Where is the holocaust at Mondragon in Spain? Where was the holocaust in the Bologna region? Yes worker cooperatives can fail but you can't have a free, innovative economy without some failure. You really should look into the examples of worker cooperatives to see how beneficial they are. There are plenty of videos on Mondragon. I already shared a few with you. Understanding these examples will give you more insight into what socailism has to offer. Yes, all the countless examples of Communism/Marxism/Socialism that resulted in the losses of hundreds of millions of lives in some of the most horrible ways possible don't count because they don't align with your imagination of what Socialism SHOULD BE. What Socialism is is an ideology that starts out with lots of great sounding concepts that have no substance and inevitably result in authoritarianism, because there is no other way for such a system to function long term. You deciding you would like to re-brand Socialism doe not change one iota of what this ideology has resulted in in the past, and nothing you are advocating is different than all the failures before you. Please, tell me some more about your super evolved, humanitarian, progressive ideas I simply just haven't looked into enough to "get it". As for your holocaust, try Holodomor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcO4tcobc0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
