Supsalemgr wrote:Stinger just doesn't get it. He believes the government has a right to confiscate a private citizen's property. Have a good day comrade.
Soupy Sales can't answer a simple question, so he resorts to buffoonery. Have a good day, Nazi/fascist/goosestepper/etc.
Supsalemgr wrote:Thanks again for showing your inmaturity and resorting to disparaging anyone who disagrees with you. We disagree. It's as simple as that.
it's really a lot less simple than that when the basis of your opinion begins with the made up position about double taxation
too bad it's something you repeated but can't back up
now run and play with your lil friends
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Supsalemgr wrote:Thanks again for showing your inmaturity and resorting to disparaging anyone who disagrees with you. We disagree. It's as simple as that.
Stinger wrote:
Supsalemgr wrote:Stinger just doesn't get it. He believes the government has a right to confiscate a private citizen's property. Have a good day comrade.
Soupy Sales can't answer a simple question, so he resorts to buffoonery. Have a good day, Nazi/fascist/goosestepper/etc.
Thanks again for showing your immaturity and resorting to disparaging anyone who disagrees with you . . . you frickin' hypocrite.
Vrede wrote:...I want there to be as little of a ruling class as possible instead of sitting back and hoping it's benevolent. Just because the Kochs didn't win doesn't mean that they didn't have an effect. The Dems now suck up to the rich, too, and the obscene amount of money, whoever it goes to, shapes everything about modern campaigning, from its style to the issues that are discussed or not discussed. That's a detriment to the rest of us regardless of who wins.
...That's why democracy and rule of law are so important. One person, one vote is one hell of a counterbalance to the wealthy. It doesn't matter if they have a hundred times the wealth and pay a hundred times the taxes; they still only get one vote.
And yes, that can make no difference in a corrupt state. Which is why the rule of law is so important, preventing bribery, etc. And with the internet and new alternatives to the mainstream media, keeping tabs on what the folks like the Koch brothers are up to is easier than ever before...
You have a narrower definition of "bribery, etc." than I do and those votes and the rest of our politic are clearly influenced by:
No, that's not a narrower definition of "bribery, etc." It's a clear example of the "bribery, etc." that the rule of law is supposed to stop.
If you don't stop it, then - as the Soviet Union demonstrated - even the most socialist redistribute-the-wealth country quickly becomes a kleptocracy run by a small few.
Vrede wrote:Except that the uber-rich, thanks to the power their money gives them over our democracy, are the ones writing and directing the enforcement of "the rule of law". "supposed to" is irrelevant, it ain't. That's why I say that having such enormous disparity in wealth is inconsistent with democracy.
You seek something closer to a democracy, not the plutocracy or oligarchy that we are headed toward (or have already arrived at).
