Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Pixie, Jul 24, 2022.
I’ve never met a free thinking leftist.
It is interesting that you dodge the leftist label, but then endorse feminism and the U.N.
Feminism is an integral component of attacking and destroying the family unit - which is at the heart of Marxism.
And the U.N. is founded on Marxist, authoritarian principles.
The U.N. has always abetted communist atrocities - especially in Africa.
The abuse and slave labor conditions that have always been heaped on defenseless black Africans by white liberals is only being increased by white liberals lust for minerals to power their precious EV's. 500,000 lbs of earth have to be mined to produce 1 EV battery.
I'm sure you believe in the whole AGW/CC fraud - and the authoritarian remedies that are slowly being fastened upon us??
Whether you are aware of how detrimental and exploitative these things are, your support of them clearly aligns you with the authoritarian monsters on the left.
The current batch are as stitched up as Victorian school ma'ams.
I can't remember even my most conservative elderly relative ever being so 'tsk tsk' as these cats. It's ****ing hilarious!
Definition of equity
1a: justice according to natural law or right specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
Definition of equitable
1: having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned an equitable settlement of the dispute
You cannot have EQUITY without practising bias and favoritism. You are literally advantaging whichever identity or class group you prefer, at the expense of those you don't prefer. It's ****ing despicable.
Equality is the only just way.
i have followed politics for about 50 years or more, it was back in newt gingrichs day when i heard the phrase "talking points" the republican party being the minority party must always agree to the party message...to the point now they will be called a rino and condemned...nothing in the freewheeling democratic party exists to compare we as dems are all over the map, only rightwing media defines what they would like to believe a liberal is..and they are usually wrong
I'm talking about the real Communist, says so right there in my post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nope, see def.
Irrelevant. In PRACTICE it's a monster. The true evil of it is clouded by the emotive BS used to promote it.
Equity is favouritism - the opposite of equality.
I'm sure that belief will secure you the two boxes you desperately want.
It is indeed there is nothing so ridiculously, self righteous to point if self parody as a leftist in high dudgeon, and the more lilliputian the object of his wrath the more, he blows himself up and the more hysterical he becomes. Even the old school Puritans cannot hold a candle to the pure unvarnished self righteousness of your average leftist.
It's fantastic to watch. Well fed and infinitely safe First Worlders, setting their hair on fire over words. The ultimate privilege.
Not even close. Without the private sector there is no wealth for government to transfer. Governments can at best facilitate the creation of wealth. They do not and cannot create it on their own. Wealth unlike matter is constantly being created and destroyed. Everytime someone makes something wealth is created anytime someone destroys something wealth is destroyed. Governments destroy or transfer wealth and in the latter case it is more often destroyed than not because that which is free is without value to the recipient.
Yes they can and sorry but wrong.
Dead wrong. When governments try to create wealth they invariably screw it up. By the time the British government incompetent management. Margaret thatcher came much of that government control was rolled back to the great improvement of almost everything English. Russia remains largely technically backwards, China's entire economy is largely based on piracy of intellectual property.
Which, in your opinion, should laws prioritize: the protection of the rights of the individual, or the protection of the well-being of the community?
If the individual is allowed to express himself and flourish, the well being of the community will follow, partly because the individual will want to protect and contribute to the community.
I don't see an either/or. I see à logical unity.
You omitted that wealth is used to invest and increase.
Governments are investing all the time in other countries (bonds and gilts) which are time constrained and yield interest.
They invest in housing which allows more people to live there and in turn pay taxes. Ditto investing in business for the same reasons.
The government is interested in général growth so that they can put money into necessary public services which do not yield profit but which are vital to the wellbeing of the population.
What is à real communist?
Frankly I have never met one either in reality or virtually reality.
They seem to look large in the créative minds of some who identify with the right however.
So please define what you mean.
The support for the understanding of women as independent human beings with rights equal to those of men is fundamental to the equality of all people.
Her rôle is not to cément together the family. That is the rôle of BOTH PARENTS. Since the 1960's Men hold as much responsibility for the family as women do. Gone are the days of women in a spotless kitchen creating lovely meals and looking like Doris Day.
There is hardly an organisation less Marxist than the UN. It has no economic policy, is not interested in class préférences and does not get involved in internal decisions made by individual nations. Any exploitation is done for capitalist gain by those who are in a position to profit...often large multinational corporations.
And those who are interested in profit by investing in their stocks and bonds from anywhere in the world.
The UN is about global human rights, emergency aid, border disputes and the proper conduct of wars. The running of global trade is by the World Trade Organisation.
What happens inside nations is not the business of either because they are sovereign nations in the same way you would not accept the UN telling you how to run the US.
The revolution was tragic yes. But when did he became tragic ? When Louis XVI decided to spit on his people and join armies to break his own people. He tore up his own people. At that moment there was two Frances, one that couldn't stand Louis and one who couldn't let him go. The revolution didn't wanted to overthrow him from the start but he decided to play dumb. Later he was discovered that he was working with foreigners to get his own country invaded. The nobility were just a bunch of leeches with wigs. Many slander the revolution because they think that the people should just bear the injustice, but there was the spirit of "no more" that is wonderfull. They got their chance to things being done nicely, they spit on the face of the people as an answer.
There was many scoundrels, little nobodies full of their newly gained power (I think to Carrier, Fouquier-Tinville), you can't overthrow an order and except to go smoothly. Does it mean that you should still bear the injustice ? No.
But at the moment Louis XVI decided to abandon his people to crush him back with foreign armies, that's also the moment that the revolution became the most intense, with all negative and positive, abolishement of slavery in 1794, nobody could dream of it. Full citizenship for people of color ? American people of color had to wait more than 150 years to get that. Universal right to vote, to educaation. Controle over the representants.There was a dream in the french revolution that should be remembered, without forgetting the tragedy of the time.
And lest we forget it broke the absolute power created by the interdependent alliance of church and state. Catholicism was still the majority faith but the people could challenge it in their new democracy.
Though it wasn't until 1905 before the connection was officially broken.
So your member name is a true réflection of your struggling to recognise rational thinking.
I like your honesty.
Separate names with a comma.