First GOP Debate!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 08:35 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The majority of the Armed Forces are not combat soldiers. You find your equal opportunity in clerks and logisitics and intel and combat pilots and snipers support functions.
what is equal opportunity? how should I understand this nonsense?

You get paid the same whether you're in hand-to-hand combat or you're flying a drone from 5,000 miles away.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 09:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:35 PM)Alla Wrote:  what is equal opportunity? how should I understand this nonsense?

You get paid the same whether you're in hand-to-hand combat or you're flying a drone from 5,000 miles away.
What if I am a cashier in Walmart and you are a doctor(professor), should we get paid the same?
What if I am teller at the bank and you are a miner, should we get paid the same?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:24 PM
RE: First GOP Debate!
What if I am not very smart and you are very smart, can we have equal opportunities?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:36 PM
RE: First GOP Debate!
False equivalencies in civilian life are not the same as those who risk their lives in faraway lands. And to your other erroneous blanket statement, IQ level isn't used in everyday application when deciding to give all individuals an equal opportunity to achieve great things.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:41 PM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 11:36 PM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  False equivalencies in civilian life are not the same as those who risk their lives in faraway lands. And to your other erroneous blanket statement, IQ level isn't used in everyday application when deciding to give all individuals an equal opportunity to achieve great things.
what gives an equal opportunities to individuals?
I am not sure I still understand what it means.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:59 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2015 02:22 AM by Cosmic Discourse.)
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 11:41 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 11:36 PM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  False equivalencies in civilian life are not the same as those who risk their lives in faraway lands. And to your other erroneous blanket statement, IQ level isn't used in everyday application when deciding to give all individuals an equal opportunity to achieve great things.
what gives an equal opportunities to individuals?
I am not sure I still understand what it means.
When I speak of equal opportunity, it's with respect to every individual of working age, being afforded the same opportunity or some would say "chance at success".

Here's an example:

Let's say you and I were both graduating from high school next semester. We live in different neighborhoods, but in the same city. We both went to public high schools for our general education. Now, let's say you lived in a more affluent neighborhood than I did. Typically in America, odds are your chances of receiving the better education and greater number of high paying employment opportunities will outnumber mine.

While this isn't always the case, it occurs more than it should. As a country it greatly reduces our chances of competing on a global scale, since the best talent doesn't always get the opportunity to rise to the top. In that example, if I was given the identical educational experience you had, it increases the odds of us fairly competing against one another in the job market.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 01:49 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 11:24 PM)Alla Wrote:  What if I am not very smart and you are very smart...?

You have doubts about that?

Blink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
15-08-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(14-08-2015 07:59 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)julep Wrote:  Feeling confused, because you say that taking handouts makes you a poor person with no opportunities,
I didn't say this. I said that if I am taking handouts it means I am poor. As long as I am taking handouts I am poor. If I like to take handouts I will NOT look for opportunities.
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)julep Wrote:  but at one point you state that you did take welfare assistance. And now, you don't have to take handouts, because you are in the middle class.

I stopped taking handouts when I was poor. If I didn't stop while I was poor I wouldn't become middle class.
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)julep Wrote:  You didn't come to American to collect government help…but you did anyway. That seems to have done you a lot of good, so why are you so opposed to other people using it?
When did I say this? When did I say that I oppose helping poor and needy?
My point is not about this. My point is this:
If I am poor adult it is not because I don't have an opportunity to live better, to improve quality of my life, but because it is my choice.
I had no money, no friends, no relatives, no English, different culture, different everything. But America offered to me many opportunities. To live on welfare was one of them. I chose the higher road. I know I could achieve more but I was either lazy or insecure insecure.
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)julep Wrote:  As an adult, I have always worked for myself, but I have benefited from tax codes that let me deduct my mortgage interest as well as a number of expenses that, as a self-employed person, I get to write off while a person who has an employer doesn't get to deduct. As a child living in a poor household, I got reduced cost lunches for a year. As an American child, I also got a free education that my parents (not homeowners) did not pay for with their taxes.
It is myopic to believe that your economic situation is solely due to you and your own efforts, or to blame others for taking advantage of the structures a society's set up to help its members advance.
I am not against helping poor people. I am Christian. I am kind and compassionate person. I am not against welfare.
But I do not agree with those who say that in America there are people who can not have opportunities to live better lives unless government helps them.

I also do not understand this "equal opportunities" nonsense.
I can understand equal rights. But what is equal opportunities?
And how do equal opportunities make me and you equal?
what is "equal people"?

It's comforting, but untrue, to believe that every bit of success you achieve is solely because of your own efforts. Recognizing that fact doesn't at all take away credit from one's accomplishments.

There's an American expression here that is fitting: "born on third base but thinks he hit a triple."

Equal opportunity ideally intends that a child raised, say, in the projects by a poor single mother should have the same general chances of life success as a child raised by a billionaire, since we don't choose our parents; that people with the same gifts will have similar opportunities to develop and express them. That's why a lot of social uplift programs try to improve the nutrition and education of the poorest children. That's also why jobs that were traditionally considered men's work or women's work, or (even worse) white men's work, have been opened to a wider range of workers. It is not a perfect system. Unintended consequences are common.

Equal opportunity has zero to do with equal pay or with people being equal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
15-08-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
What in the hell, are you browsing the forums on a 800x600 monitor from 1996 or what? Take some time to make your posts readable... Dodgy


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 10:28 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yet somehow, I'm the asshole, when Jesus appears to be a more radical socialist than anything I've come close to supporting.
You are not asshole, you are ignorant and naive. I will tell you why in a minute.

Considering that's you've only selectively responded to a small part of my entire post, I highly doubt that.

Let the record show that 'you got served' for the majority of the previous exchange, and I'm about to make it a full hat-trick.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 10:28 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Take two citizens, both who live under the same laws and the same government; however one is very wealthy and the other is not. So the richer citizen spends some of his wealth and buys the political favor of politicians, and they in turn pass laws more favorable to the rich guy. Things like changes in the tax code, offloading more taxes onto the poorer citizens while giving tax breaks to the richer ones; this allows them to hoard more wealth, thus allowing them to buy more political favors, and the cycle continues. Allowed to continue unchecked and you'll see the massive wealth inequality currently seen in the United States.

Why do you have no problem with that?
I have a problem with this. But I understand that as soon as socialist who promotes income equality gets power he/she becomes corrupt.

All politicians are corrupt, therefor fuck the entire concept of Socialism?

See, this is why you didn't make the debate team.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  Socialist who wants to change the world and gets the power is greedy person. He might appear as really nice and kind person. Greedy person will make all people equally POOR but him and his friends and relatives will live like Gods in paradise.

Note for the slow: that isn't socialism, that's a totalitarian oligarchy.

However the problems of political corruption, effectiveness, and accountability, are all separate issues. You're trying to attack socialism by burning the strawman of corruption.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  You will never change this. But you (fool) do not get it.

So far you've utterly failed to make a constructive counter-argument for why you oppose greater wealth equality. Thus far the only ignorant fool here is you.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  You can only dream about fair society. It will never happened in THIS world when there are greedy people who seek power.

Nice strawman you have there. When did I advocate a perfectly equal society? I did not, because I see the value of merit and positive incentives. I desire equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

So bleating about how the world will never be perfectly equal because of human nature is a mute point you stupid fuck. Corruption is something that needs to be accounted for in any political system, and you do so with checks and balances, decentralized power, and rigorous accountability. Perfection is not a destination, it's a goal.

There is a reason why the Constitution of the United States has 27 Amendments to it; they didn't get it right the first time.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble, United States Constitution


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  they will promise you what you like. But they will lie to you.

Thus, why we need to be able to hold politicians and governments accountable to the people they represent. That is, once again, an argument against corruption; not a reasoned argument against socialism or greater wealth equality.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 10:28 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All I want is for things to be more evenly distributed, instead of the poor shouldering all of the burden while the wealthy gain all of the benefits.
Obama didn't help with income inequality problem, did he?
Under Obama poor are more poor, rich are more rich. And Sanders will be the same. But only naïve fools like you will TRUST him.

Lets ignore for the moment that Obama is not a monarch with unilateral power, and thus policies failures cannot be rested upon his shoulders in their entirety. This is called nuance, having an understanding of context, both of which you severely lack.

Sanders may be the same, he may not. He has a long record of voting very in line with liberal policies. Whether or not he'd keep to this track record cannot be guaranteed, but he does have a history to back up his current talking points; he does not appear to be a dog-and-pony show.

That being said, that still won't account for how much he may or may not be able to get done with a Republican dominated Senate and House of Representatives. He might have the best ideas in the world, but if the Republicans can make them die on the vine, is he responsible for them not passing? Would the inability to pass social reform through a broken political; process be an indictment of the ideas behind the social reform, or of the very broken system they're trying to fix?

Don't hurt your head too much thinking more than a single step ahead dumbass.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  I am not uncle Tom but you are naive fool.

Ha! You didn't even get the reference.

You'd rather appease your oppressors instead of fighting back, that makes you an Uncle Tom.


(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)Alla Wrote:  Yes, believe that Sanders will build you fair society.
We all might become equally poor but Sanders will be much richer than you and me together.

He says he wants to fix the system, he's the only candidate proposing campaign finance reform. If you're so fucking hung up on political corruption, you're doing a fine job trying to throw under the bus the only candidate even remotely interested in fighting it. Fox news and lackeys of the Koch Brothers hate him, and that is precisely why.

Just remember that the politicians who are pro-cheating (which currently includes all of the Presidential candidates except Sanders) deserve a healthy level of skepticism. Not that Sanders should be given a free pass, but just keep in mind that the only anti-corruption candidate just happens to be the only socialist.

You figure it out you stupid cunt... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-08-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 01:49 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 11:24 PM)Alla Wrote:  What if I am not very smart and you are very smart...?

You have doubts about that?

Blink

No, I don't have doubts about. I am not very smart, I am stupid. I am a women.
There are a lot of stupid women.
I hope it makes you feel better Big Grin

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: