Current Events > I see now why Republicans are so self-centered in their beliefs.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The "fuck you, got mine" attitude is a very survival-based one. In primitive times, you either ate or you died, so keeping food for yourself was a very rational thing to do back then.

It seems that Republicans today simply haven't adopted the mindsets that compliment civilization, agriculture, and industry as we know them today. To them, these things are merely tools to satisfy the same basic instinct their ancestors had.

There's a reason why it's called the Grand Old Party. They're paying homage to those who hoarded resources back when it was acceptable to do so. It also explains why they are so adamant on maintaining traditions that can be damaging to the self or to others.

I think it's up to the rest of us to show them what a developed world looks like and how we all benefit as a collective from distributing resources.
---

It's actually because they are realists who value power
---

ITT: Bait
---

self righteous liberals crack me up lol
---

Capitalism doesn't thrive on abundance, it thrives on scarcity. Even if it has to be rigged to be so.

cooperation > competition, but not everyone views it that way
---

Lol collectivists.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Capitalism doesn't thrive on abundance, it thrives on scarcity. Even if it has to be rigged to be so.

But resources are inherently scarce

Venezuela found that out the hard way.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Lol collectivists.

---

BignutzisBack posted...

self righteous liberals crack me up lol

---

There's already enough evidence in this thread to prove my point! We need to help these poor souls understand that the world isn't like it used to be.
---

John_Galt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Lol collectivists.

read the Bread Book
---

Tc basically is upset republicans have more than him.

Go live in USSR
---

ZMythos posted...

There's already enough evidence in this thread to prove my point! We need to help these poor souls understand that the world isn't like it used to be.

Yeah! What we need today is a heavily centralized government that nationalizes all vital commodities to eliminate the class structure and erase income inequality, right?
---

BignutzisBack posted...

self righteous liberals crack me up lol

Seriously lmfao tc the type of dude to complain about the 30 year old driving a Porsche while he rides his mountain bike
---

Pull your weight.

He who doesn't work doesn't eat.

There's just not a whole lot of sympathy for someone who can provide for themselves, but wants someone else to just take care of them. If all of society had that attitude, then no one would eat. When you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior.
---

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Tc basically is upset republicans have more than him.

Look! This self-destructive mindset is present even in the most feeble-minded republican!

This is an epidemic of national proportions.

Mal_Fet posted...

Yeah! What we need today is a heavily centralized government that nationalizes all vital commodities to eliminate the class structure and erase income inequality, right?

This poor man resorts to such extremes in a desperate attempt to cling to what he believes will vindicate him.
---

ZMythos posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Yeah! What we need today is a heavily centralized government that nationalizes all vital commodities to eliminate the class structure and erase income inequality, right?

This poor man resorts to such extremes in a desperate attempt to cling to what he believes will vindicate him.

So you don't believe in all the things I mentioned?
---

No counterarguments provided so far. Only validations or insults. Pretty sad.
---

Kineth posted...

No counterarguments provided so far. Only validations or insults. Pretty sad.

It breaks my heart.
---

Kineth posted...

No counterarguments provided so far. Only validations or insults. Pretty sad.

Countries that eschew the free market in favor of heavy social programs and nationalized commodities invariably become tyrannical dictatorships.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions, friend.
---

Nothing wrong with not sharing what is yours. If i bust my ass to work and provide for my family...why should I make sure TC or @Kineth eats?

Theres no real reason to do so. They have/had the same opportunities i have/had.
---

Kineth posted...

No counterarguments provided so far. Only validations or insults. Pretty sad.

And no arguments been made for it....
---

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Nothing wrong with not sharing what is yours. If i bust my ass to work and provide for my family...why should I make sure TC or @Kineth eats?

It's much worse than I thought!!

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Theres no real reason to do so. They have/had the same opportunities i have/had.

Goodness me! He actually believes this... this is more serious than any one of us could have predicted...
---

Ah the troll cant actually converse his opinions...
---

Nomadic View posted...

Pull your weight.

He who doesn't work doesn't eat.

There's just not a whole lot of sympathy for someone who can provide for themselves, but wants someone else to just take care of them. If all of society had that attitude, then no one would eat. When you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior.

Funny enough that doesn't seem to apply those born into extreme wealth.

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?
---

PoopMcgee420 posted...

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?

Civilized, developed, empathetic?
---

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?

Civilized, developed, empathetic?

Ok, you're just a troll then.

Not even die-hard Democrats would say this anymore.
---

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?

Civilized, developed, empathetic?

---

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?

Civilized, developed, empathetic?

Yeah when i think of places like Detroit i think civilized...developed...and/or empathetic


Lmfao at @CADE_FOSTER not being able to form a single individual thought
---

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

M_Live posted...

So basically, Republicans are Neanderthals?

Then what are democrats?

Civilized, developed, empathetic?

Lol good one
---

0 y u do dis
---

does that mean if a republican got into trouble and needed help, other republicans would just go "fuck him"?
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

It's actually because they are realists who value power

Thread could have ended here.
---

TC must believe liberal companies like google and starbucks has his best interests in mind.

The only difference between dems and repubs in regards to the fuck u I got mine attitude is repub leaders freely admit it. When liberal controlled CA cares enough about humanity to solve its homeless problem we can talk. Until then you'll just come off as a virtue signalling naive teen with a hero complex.
---

They know they will be outnumbered by mid-century, and are desperately trying to cling to the power and privilege they've long taken for granted. Diversity and globalism are terrifying to people who are coming to realize that whether they wish it or not people who don't look like them will be looking down at them from the boss' office, judge's bench, and mayor's office. All those young men carrying Tiki Torches in Virginia last week know they are soon going to find themselves in a job interview, sitting across the desk from a black woman. They know one day they might be pulled over by a hispanic cop who remembers Sheriff Joe. Lots of patriotic young men know they will soon find themselves joining the military, and being obligated to salute a female officer who may have been born male.

Their clumsy and haphazard attempts to hold on to a bygone era are just digging their own grave. In 130 days everyone born in the 20th century will be over 18. Everyone born before January 1, 1950 (people old enough to actually have lived in the era Republicans seem to want to return to) will be past retirement age. It will be the sixties, seventies, and eighties again before you know it. Republicans don't seem to realize that history of now isn't being kept on some dusty bookshelf and open to interpretation. History is live, in color, and verbatim. Republicans will be judged by their descendants for their short-sighted, self-centered actions in the late 20th/early 21st centuries whether they wish it or not simply by being outnumbered.

mike42 posted...

They know they will be outnumbered by mid-century, and are desperately trying to cling to the power and privilege they've long taken for granted. Diversity and globalism are terrifying to people who are coming to realize that whether they wish it or not people who don't look like them will be looking down at them from the boss' office, judge's bench, and mayor's office. All those young men carrying Tiki Torches in Virginia last week know they are soon going to find themselves in a job interview, sitting across the desk from a black woman. They know one day they might be pulled over by a hispanic cop who remembers Sheriff Joe. Lots of patriotic young men know they will soon find themselves joining the military, and being obligated to salute a female officer who may have been born male.

Their clumsy and haphazard attempts to hold on to a bygone era are just digging their own grave. In 130 days everyone born in the 20th century will be over 18. Everyone born before January 1, 1950 (people old enough to actually have lived in the era Republicans seem to want to return to) will be past retirement age. It will be the sixties, seventies, and eighties again before you know it. Republicans don't seem to realize that history of now isn't being kept on some dusty bookshelf and open to interpretation. History is live, in color, and verbatim. Republicans will be judged by their descendants for their short-sighted, self-centered actions in the late 20th/early 21st centuries whether they wish it or not simply by being outnumbered.

Being outnumbered doesn't determine who ultimately holds power. Honestly as a liberal this writing of liberalism as being a determined outcome bothers the shit out of me. If you want power, you have to fight for it. Nothing is going to be guaranteed to you. If it is between 100 people getting a pie or 1 person getting the pie, 100 people all looking at each other and telling themselves that they surely outnumber the 1 are not going to get the pie if the 1 gets up and grabs it himself.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Pull your weight.

He who doesn't work doesn't eat.

There's just not a whole lot of sympathy for someone who can provide for themselves, but wants someone else to just take care of them. If all of society had that attitude, then no one would eat. When you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior.

Funny enough that doesn't seem to apply those born into extreme wealth.

Yes, it does. Under 18 the parent is obligated to take care of the child. Beyond that it's the parents choice and discretion to continue taking care of their child.

If you want to give to charity, that's your prerogative. It's not society's obligation to do it, however.

It's easy to pretend to be high and mighty on a moral pedestal when you're redistributing other people's money.

If you want to give to the less fortunate out of your own funds that you earned, more power to you. And I commend you for your generosity. However, I seriously doubt you're willing to be so giving and charitable when the money being divided out is yours.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Kineth posted...

No counterarguments provided so far. Only validations or insults. Pretty sad.

Countries that eschew the free market in favor of heavy social programs and nationalized commodities invariably become tyrannical dictatorships.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions, friend.

Well, thank you for actually providing a counterargument though I feel that it is not phrased truthfully. It is true that there are plenty of examples of such events happening where the relation is not mere happenstance and that they were a direct cause; however, there are just as easily many examples of the opposite happening and the results at this point in history seem to show better economic outcomes.

To be fair, plenty of countries have gone through transitions like that in recent history. In many of those negative instances, there were surely many other factors at play that were merely accompanied by such endeavors. I mean, to be fair, the 5 year plan is an early Communist tactic that was also used by Mao in China, HCM in Vietnam and the Kim family to a lesser extent in North Korea. The tactics used by the governments, which tended to be very despotic and totalitarian, are not a reflection of the economic system, but rather a reflection of an economic system being used by an extremely controlling, absolutist state.

And to be fair, socialism is generally only viable when you have a healthy, robust middle class population. It's very economically feasible to implement if there's a more fluid transition between the economic classes with an average individual income being enough for them to be a market participant and actually be able to save money which they will reinvest into the economy and thus increase its total size, assuming people are actually able to save up money to start small businesses that potentially could compete with national chains in their local economy. Point is that socialism isn't meant to keep people poor. It's meant to make it so that being poor isn't as close to a massively increased possibility of dying as it can and has been.

In an economic sense, it acts like how insurance does. People put money into risk pools that when they pay for insurance. Generally if you're higher risk, you can only qualify for ones that require steeper rates, due to the increased likelyhood of having to pay out. All it really does though, especially with the state monopolies that the insurance industry has, is split up the pools so that the risk is not mitigated as much by the rest of the population, in all the sub-pools that the companies make for classifying applicants. Having a central pool through taxes that aggregates the population, the fund from a portion of the people's taxes where everyone pays a small percentage that goes towards everyone's treatment would quite simply lower the rate that everyone has to pay on average. That's not an absolute, but it will have that effect in a sweeping, "omg, the market said what??" kind of fashion.

Functionally though, the implementation, governance and simple understanding of what socialism is in the first place, would go a long way toward seeing it as only being a nefarious plot meant to exploit people's hard work for nothing. It's not like you wouldn't also receive a benefit as well, at least in the health care scenario.

So I will be very surprised if this gets even 1/10th of the effort put into this as a response, but I'll only call you shortsighted this time. People seem to have this common misconception of what socialism is. It's an economic system. How the government plays its part in that system is entirely dependent on the governance and those who writes the laws and so forth. If a coup was imminent in those states, it is highly likely that the welfare policies were implemented to placate the populace and buy some time.
---

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Nothing wrong with not sharing what is yours. If i bust my ass to work and provide for my family...why should I make sure TC or @ Kineth eats?

It's much worse than I thought!!

lol, the things people say. Even worse that it's a fucking alt of Hoth.
---

lol @ two party systems and the misguided loyalties of the tribal pawns defending it.

it's an endless loop because people want to recapture the era of their grandparents instead of being focused on progression. stepping away from traditionally destructive habits should be a priority for anybody trying to survive long term.
---

Kineth posted...

ZMythos posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Nothing wrong with not sharing what is yours. If i bust my ass to work and provide for my family...why should I make sure TC or @ Kineth eats?

It's much worse than I thought!!

lol, the things people say. Even worse that it's a fucking alt of Hoth.

Oh my god. First im JerseyProud now im Hoth.

If you arent a pathetic little boy idk what is
---

Nomadic View posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Pull your weight.

He who doesn't work doesn't eat.

There's just not a whole lot of sympathy for someone who can provide for themselves, but wants someone else to just take care of them. If all of society had that attitude, then no one would eat. When you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior.

Funny enough that doesn't seem to apply those born into extreme wealth.

Yes, it does. Under 18 the parent is obligated to take care of the child. Beyond that it's the parents choice and discretion to continue taking care of their child.

If you want to give to charity, that's your prerogative. It's not society's obligation to do it, however.

It's easy to pretend to be high and mighty on a moral pedestal when you're redistributing other people's money.

If you want to give to the less fortunate out of your own funds that you earned, more power to you. And I commend you for your generosity. However, I seriously doubt you're willing to be so giving and charitable when the money being divided out is yours.

Your moral concern was that you didn't want to subsidize idleness but that is exactly what allowing for extreme wealth disparities does. Paris Hilton doesn't have to work a single day in her entire life from age 0 on if she doesn't want to do it. Neither does James Murdoch or any other oligarch. Yet the peasants like you and me, we have to or we starve. You masochistically apply to yourself higher obligations than you do the rich and powerful. Have fun working that out, but the rest of us are not going to live by the free market as the powerful get fat off of government pull and socialism.

Mal_Fet posted...

Countries that eschew the free market in favor of heavy social programs and nationalized commodities invariably become tyrannical dictatorships.

oh yeah, look at denmark, sweden, and canada. all dictatorships. hardcore.

you're a fucking shill, mal
---

Frankly I don't trust Republicans or Democrats to have my best interests in mind, hence why I actively avoid associating with or voting for either.

Never done me no favors, quite the contrary, they're the goddamn enemy of the lower class such as myself. So hey, "fuck you too".
---

lol

well yeah it's the role of the left to civilize society, it's the role of the right to get in their way
---