Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why leftist hate economics so much?

Page 13 of 16 [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

27 Nov 2010, 11:59 pm

And the tea partiers, who are taking over the republican party, want to repeal the 14th.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:00 am

LKL wrote:
And the tea partiers, who are taking over the republican party, want to repeal the 14th.


That concerns people entering the country illegally and giving birth to anchor babies. Illegally means a crime has been committed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 9:03 am

LKL wrote:
And the tea partiers, who are taking over the republican party, want to repeal the 14th.


Just the clause pertaining to who is a citizen. When the 14th was passed we did not have an inflow problem with Mexico.

ruveyn



russell
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: House of Pain

28 Nov 2010, 1:06 pm

Lets hope the South wins next time.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

28 Nov 2010, 2:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
And the tea partiers, who are taking over the republican party, want to repeal the 14th.


Just the clause pertaining to who is a citizen. When the 14th was passed we did not have an inflow problem with Mexico.

ruveyn


No, but we had 'problems' with inflow from other countries. IIrc there was a big debate at the time about how the 14th amendment would allow Chinese babies to become citizens.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

28 Nov 2010, 2:38 pm

russell wrote:
Lets hope the South wins next time.


Yes; the rest of the country would be better off both financially and culturally if they were allowed to secede from the union.



russell
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: House of Pain

28 Nov 2010, 3:02 pm

^ Yes, an independent Confederacy would be awesome ! !!



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Nov 2010, 3:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The neo-Confederates are not only solidly Republican but their values have taken over the Republican Party. All this talk about states' rights and decentralising the USA - they want to replace the US Constitution with the CS Constitution, effectively... This division of society into masters and servants, with workers being the hired help who don't count, only owners count... If the Republicans get their way the South would have conquered the USA and won the Civil war in the end.


What does states' rights have to do with slavery? There is such thing as Federal Government having too much power you know.



Slavery and the Civil War was an argument of the 10th Amendment versus the 9th. The Confederates argued it was their right to hold slaves as it was not explicitly banned in the Constitution and therefore their decision on the state-level was legal.

The only good idea the Confederates ever had was to eliminate riders on legislation.


Again, where are Republicans advocating slavery? The 13th and 14th amendments kinda make it difficult to reinstitute slavery.


The Republican platform tends to be against the worker's rights and tends to be against protecting workers' income in favor of protecting the incomes of the corporation's executives. Republicans protect big business at the detriment of the individual and more specifically the little individual citizen.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 4:35 pm

skafather84 wrote:
r
The Republican platform tends to be against the worker's rights and tends to be against protecting workers' income in favor of protecting the incomes of the corporation's executives. Republicans protect big business at the detriment of the individual and more specifically the little individual citizen.


That is not advocating slavery. Slavery is involuntary servitude. No free Unitedstatesean is compelled by law to work or to serve.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 5:47 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The neo-Confederates are not only solidly Republican but their values have taken over the Republican Party. All this talk about states' rights and decentralising the USA - they want to replace the US Constitution with the CS Constitution, effectively... This division of society into masters and servants, with workers being the hired help who don't count, only owners count... If the Republicans get their way the South would have conquered the USA and won the Civil war in the end.


What does states' rights have to do with slavery? There is such thing as Federal Government having too much power you know.



Slavery and the Civil War was an argument of the 10th Amendment versus the 9th. The Confederates argued it was their right to hold slaves as it was not explicitly banned in the Constitution and therefore their decision on the state-level was legal.

The only good idea the Confederates ever had was to eliminate riders on legislation.


Again, where are Republicans advocating slavery? The 13th and 14th amendments kinda make it difficult to reinstitute slavery.


The Republican platform tends to be against the worker's rights and tends to be against protecting workers' income in favor of protecting the incomes of the corporation's executives. Republicans protect big business at the detriment of the individual and more specifically the little individual citizen.


Seriously stop with the just spouting the DNC's talking points, Republicans are against Unions because they've felt the situation has gotten corrupt and out-of-hand. It is incredibly difficult to fire unionized workers even when they do things that you would expect someone should be reasonably fired.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Nov 2010, 6:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
r
The Republican platform tends to be against the worker's rights and tends to be against protecting workers' income in favor of protecting the incomes of the corporation's executives. Republicans protect big business at the detriment of the individual and more specifically the little individual citizen.


That is not advocating slavery. Slavery is involuntary servitude. No free Unitedstatesean is compelled by law to work or to serve.

ruveyn


How far does coercion go before it's involuntary servitude?


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 7:39 pm

skafather84 wrote:
How far does coercion go before it's involuntary servitude?


The point at which one is bound in shackles or threatened with injury or death if the service in not rendered. I am talking about genuine force, the kind that makes people bleed or die and bones to break.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

28 Nov 2010, 8:14 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
The Republican platform tends to be against the worker's rights and tends to be against protecting workers' income in favor of protecting the incomes of the corporation's executives. Republicans protect big business at the detriment of the individual and more specifically the little individual citizen.


Seriously stop with the just spouting the DNC's talking points, Republicans are against Unions because they've felt the situation has gotten corrupt and out-of-hand. It is incredibly difficult to fire unionized workers even when they do things that you would expect someone should be reasonably fired.


Unfair treatment of workers is the reason unions came to be in the first place. Maybe people like yourself would prefer the US become more like totalitarian China where the government actively suppresses the rights of workers to organize.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 9:03 pm

marshall wrote:

Unfair treatment of workers is the reason unions came to be in the first place. Maybe people like yourself would prefer the US become more like totalitarian China where the government actively suppresses the rights of workers to organize.


Do you think that the unfairness shown to workers many decades ago justifies unfairness to the people who hire them? Let the workers organize all they want, and let the capitalists close down their factories in the U.S. and go to countries where the proles are more grateful for having jobs.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Nov 2010, 12:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
Unfair treatment of workers is the reason unions came to be in the first place. Maybe people like yourself would prefer the US become more like totalitarian China where the government actively suppresses the rights of workers to organize.


Do you think that the unfairness shown to workers many decades ago justifies unfairness to the people who hire them? Let the workers organize all they want, and let the capitalists close down their factories in the U.S. and go to countries where the proles are more grateful for having jobs.

When those lowly "proles" organize and demand better pay, they will have more to spend in their own countries so that new US factories can once again compete in the global market. The only way to get the US back to full employment and save the western world from total economic collapse is to close the wage gap. It has to happen or we are screwed. Of course global corporations and the powers that be have no interest in allowing that since in the short term they can always make more profits simply by paying wage earners as little as they can get away with.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Nov 2010, 1:00 am

ruveyn wrote:
where the proles are more grateful for having jobs.


Gratitude doesn't pay rent, insurance, food, or any other bills that come up in between.


Again, you lower the pay enough and there's little to no difference between slavery and a perfect capitalism. See: Foxconn.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson