lol. I never said anything of the sort.

luda strikes me as an angry, bitter poor

"Conservatives" are proving themselves to all, unanimously, be just as big of phonies as their fat **** hero.

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, unless it is a presidential election year... in which case you wait a year to do anything

That is clear original textual meaning of the appointment clause, duh! The plain meaning is very clear!

the point is that without a free enterprise capitalistic system that produces inequality as a byproduct the standard of living for the world at large would be much lower than it is now

why is no progress better than some progress

Because despite what your mommy told you, you are not special, you are not Atlas and you are not bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders. There are plenty of talented, intelligent people with work ethic in the world such that human progress is inevitable in the absence of war and disasters. So the issue is simple minded ****s thinking they are the masters of the universe and entitled to virtually all the fruits of human progress just because they happened to be lucky enough to be placed in a position to rape society since we haven't figured out anything that works better than capitalism yet.

didn't we do this exact thing with the aids?

Sure. But providing a financial incentive expedites that human progress

Successful capitalists do not "rape society." They provide value to society. They make or do something that people want, and receive money in a transaction for it. Customer happy, capitalist happy, society happy. Try opening a business and not pleasing people, you probably won't get very far.

thank you for the kindergarten-level explanation of capitalism

I mean he just inferred that people "rape society." I think my response was pretty reasonable.

You will if you eliminate/buyout competition, engage in deceptive practices, etc. Not to mention a huge chunk of today's wealthy should have been wiped out during last recession, even if I do grant that it was practical to bail them out. Bottom line is that "deserve" only partially explains the current distribution of wealth in our society, yet many justify unwanton greed because of extreme arrogance regarding the uniqueness of their attributes.

btw this Scalia stuff from the Rs has got to be some of the dumbest most hypocritical things they have ever done/said

I'm not arguing against capitalism or wealth inequality, but the degree of inequality.

definitely didn't say that.

It is some truly strange phenomenon that every schmuck who fancies himself as a protagonist of a long-lost Ayn Rand novel has an Economics-for-Dummies-level understanding of economics.

I'm curious, are people opposed to reducing the degree of inequality / raising the standard for living of the worst off among us? If so, is it out of principle, practicality, or something else?

I can only speak for myself but no I'm not. I will however point out that those two things aren't the same at all, and I ACTUALLY care about the latter of them and barely care at all about the former.

And it isn't out of principle so much it's out of compassion.

I'll ask a similar question. For those who campaign and worry and think about income inequality in the US: why is it that you don't care so much about the ACTUAL income inequality in the world, you know the people who aren't opulently wealthy and have never actually faced an existential threat in their entire lives? Are you for completely open inmigration? Destruction of all protectionism?

How come it seems like some are more inequal than others?

As opposed to lacking even that from the napoleon and snowball crowd? Just basing your "economics" on feelings and what you wish deep down were true?

Sure if you count Africans. No if you just mean Americans.

Maybe I've been misunderstanding everyone all along. If by "the top 1%" you mean "all Americans" and the income inequality you are talking about is global, then you've got my support. There are actual people actually suffering, millions of them, from inequality, low standards, lack of access and dearth of wealth. It's just that none of them live in the US.

I will cast my first vote for president to the next guy who runs on that platform. I'm less excited about the "a yacht in every boathouse" keeping up with the joneses WANTING garbage that passes for concern currently though.

A totally reasonable platform as soon as all those other countries consent to being ruled directly by the US.

In the meantime, your take is hot garbage.

afaik poor ppl in america aren't annoyed about the lack of free boats

Yes.


It's because it likely benefits them personally. The rest are just attempts to cover that up so the massive amount of poor people don't realize it. It's been working well. Probably won't keep working forever tho.

You need to address the obvious contradiction that your support for a candidate that has: against free trade while bashing income inequality. The former has decreased the latter more than just about anything ever.

bump

cmon ikes put this liberal in his place and make daddy and his country club buddies proud

TUT no one thinks that you need 'how a bill is made' explained to you.

Not going to lie....the prospect of the GOP blocking obama appointments for 11 months only for this to happen is enough for me to want to vote for Hilldog