where does it say money is free speech ?
the Contitution represents a series of compromises. while its interesting to see the halves of the compromise its the end result that matters.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Redistribution of wealth: New figures.
- Thread starter Openmind
- Start date
where does it say money is free speech ?
the Contitution represents a series of compromises. while its interesting to see the halves of the compromise its the end result that matters.
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
So lucky that the GOP of today and the tea party didn't participate in those "compromises," as they seem unable to compromise on anything!
demonstrably untrue but thank goodness they are listening a bit to the people wh are fed up with the out of control spending.
It's too bad they didn't start listening to that several years ago, when they were in power and could have done something about it.
agreed
but now that the bear is awake and angry they will folow their basic survival instincts and change their course. but at least they have managed to slow the hemorrhaging down a click or two with their current numbers. that could get much better come Jan 2013.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Except that, when the "bear" gets to be the "king of the forrest," it will fall asleep in it's comfortable pen, and go back to letting the war profiters dictate where the "spending" needs to "continue" and even "increase" to "keep us safe" from. . .countries 5000 miles away. . .
While the real ennemy is WITHIN our country. . . Wall Street and big corps' greed and Government corruption!
all governments are corrupt, its the nature of the beast. its a question of perspective as to which jts beneficial corruption or not.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Your pants are on fire...
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession: To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.
That's the full quote from Paine, in context... He was speaking against inheriting titles of nobility, his comments are not about the inheritance of wealth or money.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Probably because, in his time, "wealth and money" was not so overwhelming that it created "royalty" based only on wealth! And, even IF you choose to interpret it in its narrowest possible interpretation, read his words:
"For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them."
You know VERY WELL that inheriting big fortunes gives a HUGE advantage and takes away the "original equality" of people, a lot more in fact than just a "title," even if the title is "king" or "emperor!" History has shown that to be true more than once. . . but large inheritance will: " set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever."
The intent is without doubt there!
As much as he disliked
Don't count on it.
The bear did a lot of growling about cutting back the size of government and balancing the budget the last time he was hibernating, too. When he comes out of his den and gets in power, he growls a different tune.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
if the 1% owned 99%...the Right would still say to bad, you just are crying because you are not rich..go get a job...
If any Right winger here wants to Disagree...please name a number that would be to much inequality for you...1% own...50% 60% 70% 90%? 95%?
If any Right winger here wants to Disagree...please name a number that would be to much inequality for you...1% own...50% 60% 70% 90%? 95%?
There is no such thing as too much inequality...because the whole concept is arbitrary.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Fallacy of quoting out of context
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You don't REALLY believe that, do you, Rob?
What is "arbitrary" about people working two minimum wage jobs to feed their 3 kids, while other people make $126 millions compensation a year even when their company shows a deficit and lays off thousand of their employees?
Also, you have obviously not watched the video I posted of the lecture that demonstrates the REAL effect of large income inequalities all over the world.
Werbung:
Yes.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics such an example is not the norm.
And it is arbritrary, because if that person making $126 million took all their money out of the country, it will close the wage gap, but nothing has changed.
No, I have no watched your video. That said, if income inequality all over the world is your issue, why are you not up in arms about the wage gap between the United States and Tanzania? (especially if it is so unsustainable)
