Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2015, 05:07 PM
Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
Before the civil war the Southern Democrats were openly pro-slavery. Is that still the case? Imagine you got a complaint that a corporation in Indonesia was practicing slavery in a sweat shop. What's the one question you would ask to determine if it really was slavery or just bad working conditions? Is it not: "are you free to leave? or does the corporation maintain that you were born with a debt to them which must be re-paid through life-long servitude?"

Now substitute "country" for "corporation"... Every country in the world believes government provides a service and if you feel you're not getting a good value, you can move somewhere else and stop paying. Except the US and N. Korea. And the US democrats are so concerned that their policies will be such a disaster that Americans will be desperate to flee in droves, they feel people shouldn't be allowed to just move somewhere else.

Most recent example, post #50
where I wrote: "Yes, the Scandinavian countries have high taxes. But they also tell their citizens that if they're not getting a good value they're free to leave." And EvolutionKills responds: "How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*".

This demonstrates a few points:

1. While US democrats say they want to be more like Scandinavian countries, when someone actually looks at what those countries do and proposes the US do the same thing, they are blasted as 'right-wing'. Yes, compared to the positions of US democrats, Scandinavian countries are right-wing.

2. Democrats are a war party just like the GOP. All the things that contribute to one's success, like education, roads, police, etc. are mostly provided at the state/local level. Do democrats feel we have a life-long duty to pay the state/local taxes regardless of where we live? Nope, no obligation to pay for things education. What about the one federal program that actually gives back, social security & medicaid? Nope, they're funded by their own separate taxes and you're free to leave if you don't want to pay them. The one and only tax that carries a life-long obligation to pay is the federal income tax. Now look at the Federal Budget. Once you remove social security & medicaid since they have their own taxes, where does the lion's share of federal income tax go? WAR. $1.4 trillion paid in income taxes, $1.2 trillion goes to military and the war debt. So, US dems argue, they can decide what organizations contributed to our success, and those that provided education, police, fire, etc., get nothing. The military, however, we owe our life to and even if we object to the US carpet bombing middle east countries and want to leave because we don't want to be a part of the genocide, that's just tough. To US democrats, you can't leave--you must keep funding US wars no matter where you live. They are more pro-war than the GOP.

3. When you look at how US democrats justify preventing their citizens from leaving, it is always that the economic liberty of one group of people (rich people who want to relocate to avoid paying taxes) should be sacrificed for another group of people, whom they call "society" or "the greater good". Isn't sacrificing one groups liberty for the sake of another group the definition of slavery? When one group says it has claim to the economic output of another group, isn't the very defining characteristic of slavery that the latter cannot leave? Aren't these the exact same arguments that Democrats used to justify racial slavery, that it was for the greater good (ie the good of white people) to deny the economic liberty of another group (black people) and that the former had claim to the economic output of the latter and the latter was not free to leave if they didn't like it?

4. This demonstrates that to US democrats the relationship between the state and the citizens is radically different than most other parts of the developed world. In most of the world, government is an organization that provides a service, like say a dentist. If EvolutionKills paid his dentist for a cleaning and when asked to make his next appointment he said he wasn't satisfied with the service and was going to change dentists, would he accept it if the dentist replied "What you think if you don't like it you can just leave?! *spitoon* No fucking way. We provided you a service and you are now stuck with us for life." So if US democrats really believed government existed to serve the people, like a dentist, how can they justify not allowing people to leave?

5. How can they claim to support human rights when this right of mobility to leave one's nation no strings attached and relocate elsewhere is written in the UN declaration of human rights, as a basic, fundamental right of all humans, and the US has been condemned by the UN counsel on human rights for violating basic rights?

6. Are they so insecure in their policies that they really feel America will have a real problem with citizens fleeing in droves? Since they themselves fear this, isn't this the best indicator of how well a government works? How citizens vote with their feet?

7. They wonder why we libertarians would rather see everything privatized and offered on the free market. Well here you have it. When Democrats propose offering services through the government, it comes with a string of life-long servitude that you have to pay for it till death. With a private company on the free market, if you don't like the services you're getting, you're free to leave and find someone else that offers better service. If Democrats said "here's what we're going to do, and if it doesn't work out, you're free to relocate to Mexico", that would be much more acceptable than "here's what we're going to do, if it doesn't work out, we're going to trap you in life to keep you from leaving."

Their current policies fit the dictionary definition of slavery--it's just that the group they're enslaving is determined based on your economic status and not the color of your skin, and now the economic output they seize goes to one thing: war.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 05:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Before the civil war the Southern Democrats were openly pro-slavery. Is that still the case? Imagine you got a complaint that a corporation in Indonesia was practicing slavery in a sweat shop. What's the one question you would ask to determine if it really was slavery or just bad working conditions? Is it not: "are you free to leave? or does the corporation maintain that you were born with a debt to them which must be re-paid through life-long servitude?"

Now substitute "country" for "corporation"... Every country in the world believes government provides a service and if you feel you're not getting a good value, you can move somewhere else and stop paying. Except the US and N. Korea. And the US democrats are so concerned that their policies will be such a disaster that Americans will be desperate to flee in droves, they feel people shouldn't be allowed to just move somewhere else.

Most recent example, post #50
where I wrote: "Yes, the Scandinavian countries have high taxes. But they also tell their citizens that if they're not getting a good value they're free to leave." And EvolutionKills responds: "How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*".

This demonstrates a few points:

1. While US democrats say they want to be more like Scandinavian countries, when someone actually looks at what those countries do and proposes the US do the same thing, they are blasted as 'right-wing'. Yes, compared to the positions of US democrats, Scandinavian countries are right-wing.

2. Democrats are a war party just like the GOP. All the things that contribute to one's success, like education, roads, police, etc. are mostly provided at the state/local level. Do democrats feel we have a life-long duty to pay the state/local taxes regardless of where we live? Nope, no obligation to pay for things education. What about the one federal program that actually gives back, social security & medicaid? Nope, they're funded by their own separate taxes and you're free to leave if you don't want to pay them. The one and only tax that carries a life-long obligation to pay is the federal income tax. Now look at the Federal Budget. Once you remove social security & medicaid since they have their own taxes, where does the lion's share of federal income tax go? WAR. $1.4 trillion paid in income taxes, $1.2 trillion goes to military and the war debt. So, US dems argue, they can decide what organizations contributed to our success, and those that provided education, police, fire, etc., get nothing. The military, however, we owe our life to and even if we object to the US carpet bombing middle east countries and want to leave because we don't want to be a part of the genocide, that's just tough. To US democrats, you can't leave--you must keep funding US wars no matter where you live. They are more pro-war than the GOP.

3. When you look at how US democrats justify preventing their citizens from leaving, it is always that the economic liberty of one group of people (rich people who want to relocate to avoid paying taxes) should be sacrificed for another group of people, whom they call "society" or "the greater good". Isn't sacrificing one groups liberty for the sake of another group the definition of slavery? When one group says it has claim to the economic output of another group, isn't the very defining characteristic of slavery that the latter cannot leave? Aren't these the exact same arguments that Democrats used to justify racial slavery, that it was for the greater good (ie the good of white people) to deny the economic liberty of another group (black people) and that the former had claim to the economic output of the latter and the latter was not free to leave if they didn't like it?

4. This demonstrates that to US democrats the relationship between the state and the citizens is radically different than most other parts of the developed world. In most of the world, government is an organization that provides a service, like say a dentist. If EvolutionKills paid his dentist for a cleaning and when asked to make his next appointment he said he wasn't satisfied with the service and was going to change dentists, would he accept it if the dentist replied "What you think if you don't like it you can just leave?! *spitoon* No fucking way. We provided you a service and you are now stuck with us for life." So if US democrats really believed government existed to serve the people, like a dentist, how can they justify not allowing people to leave?

5. How can they claim to support human rights when this right of mobility to leave one's nation no strings attached and relocate elsewhere is written in the UN declaration of human rights, as a basic, fundamental right of all humans, and the US has been condemned by the UN counsel on human rights for violating basic rights?

6. Are they so insecure in their policies that they really feel America will have a real problem with citizens fleeing in droves? Since they themselves fear this, isn't this the best indicator of how well a government works? How citizens vote with their feet?

7. They wonder why we libertarians would rather see everything privatized and offered on the free market. Well here you have it. When Democrats propose offering services through the government, it comes with a string of life-long servitude that you have to pay for it till death. With a private company on the free market, if you don't like the services you're getting, you're free to leave and find someone else that offers better service. If Democrats said "here's what we're going to do, and if it doesn't work out, you're free to relocate to Mexico", that would be much more acceptable than "here's what we're going to do, if it doesn't work out, we're going to trap you in life to keep you from leaving."

Their current policies fit the dictionary definition of slavery--it's just that the group they're enslaving is determined based on your economic status and not the color of your skin, and now the economic output they seize goes to one thing: war.

You left the U.S.A. Why are you still whining? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-12-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 05:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  You left the U.S.A. Why are you still whining? Consider

Because the #1 reason I left was that I didn't want to be part of a terrorist society that invades, loots and kills innocent people on the other side of the planet. But you club-wielding neanderthals insist (like EvolutionKills just did) that even though I want nothing to do with this and never set foot on US soil and have no intention of ever returning, I must still continue to fund your barbaric war effort or else you'll send your thugs over to haul me back to the US at gunpoint and lock me up for trying to escape.

Believe me, it's more frustrating when you've left the US and simply want to escape and get away from those war-mongering barbarians in the Democratic party, and they insist that no matter where you go on the planet, you cannot ever escape and they will hunt you down if you don't report to them everything you do every moment of the day that is of economic interest. I am forced at gunpoint to support a killing machine that slaughters millions of innocent people, overthrows peaceful modern democracies to put in place dictators who let them loot and plunder.

Besides, this post was prompted by the other thread trying to rewrite history and claim democrats opposed slavery and the republicans supported it, when every history book will tell you it's the exact opposite. Where's your fact checking then? When I said that Iran was a modern democracy before the US overthrew them, and that an Iranian physicist first calculated the speed of light and invented the laser, you "fact checked" me and dismissed my entire argument because I didn't call him a "co-inventor" and didn't specify that he was the first to "accurately" measure the speed of light since others had previously approximated it. You nitpick absurd little trivia that has nothing to do with the point I'm making in the name of fact checking, and then those who share your political review can completely rewrite history, like reversing the sides in the civil war, and your fact-checking doesn't notice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
You really are an ignorant delusional paranoid.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...tizenship/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-12-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 05:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You really are an ignorant delusional paranoid.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...tizenship/

Really? First, the US won't let you renounce your citizenship if you don't already have other citizenship, and they put pressure on other countries like Panama that used to offer easy second citizenship for Americans to make it very hard and time-consuming to get another citizenship. Second, you have to pay an exit tax for renouncing. And third, even if you do all that, you STILL have to file tax returns and pay certain taxes even after you are no longer a citizen. Fourth, the Reed Ammendment in HIPAA lays out penalties for Americans who "defect". Fifth, they raised the fees to renounce to be 10x any other country and have a 2 year waiting list. Sixth, you can only "request it", the government still denies people the right to renounce at times.

And despite all that, Democrats insist that it's still too easy for Americans to renounce and proposed legislation like the EX-patriot act to make it nearly impossible to renounce.

To someone who is neither dem nor rep and looks at them from a neutral party, the dems really have a lot in common with ISIS. They both believe that people must be forced to act a certain way. They both advocate violence to solve all their problems. They both insist that once you're in, you're in for life and they have the right to use force to stop you from leaving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 05:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 05:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  You left the U.S.A. Why are you still whining? Consider

Because the #1 reason I left was that I didn't want to be part of a terrorist society that invades, loots and kills innocent people on the other side of the planet. But you club-wielding neanderthals insist (like EvolutionKills just did) that even though I want nothing to do with this and never set foot on US soil and have no intention of ever returning, I must still continue to fund your barbaric war effort or else you'll send your thugs over to haul me back to the US at gunpoint and lock me up for trying to escape.

Believe me, it's more frustrating when you've left the US and simply want to escape and get away from those war-mongering barbarians in the Democratic party, and they insist that no matter where you go on the planet, you cannot ever escape and they will hunt you down if you don't report to them everything you do every moment of the day that is of economic interest. I am forced at gunpoint to support a killing machine that slaughters millions of innocent people, overthrows peaceful modern democracies to put in place dictators who let them loot and plunder.

Besides, this post was prompted by the other thread trying to rewrite history and claim democrats opposed slavery and the republicans supported it, when every history book will tell you it's the exact opposite. Where's your fact checking then? When I said that Iran was a modern democracy before the US overthrew them, and that an Iranian physicist first calculated the speed of light and invented the laser, you "fact checked" me and dismissed my entire argument because I didn't call him a "co-inventor" and didn't specify that he was the first to "accurately" measure the speed of light since others had previously approximated it. You nitpick absurd little trivia that has nothing to do with the point I'm making in the name of fact checking, and then those who share your political review can completely rewrite history, like reversing the sides in the civil war, and your fact-checking doesn't notice.

I can understand your points. Yes, America is a war waging dangerous terrorist nation. Possibly the most dangerous on earth. But why do you resort to name calling respected members such as Chas, who has shown himself to be highly intelligent? He and I do not always agree. Mainly on gun ownership. However I do not allow that to block out the man himself.

You however revile me with your words. I expect it of moronic theists, but you can make decent points. Sadly your lack of tact and decorum and good taste puts you on a very low scale.

Just a thought.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
27-12-2015, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2015 06:31 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 06:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  To someone who is neither dem nor rep and looks at them from a neutral party, the dems really have a lot in common with ISIS. They both believe that people must be forced to act a certain way. They both advocate violence to solve all their problems. They both insist that once you're in, you're in for life and they have the right to use force to stop you from leaving.

Oh dear Jesus Fuck Frankie. The evangelical fundies have far more in common with ISIS. Believe in Jesus or you're a terrorist and we're gonna make you register as such and get a star and crescent tattoo on your forehead. Why you got to be so obviously divisive? You just like to be an asshole, don't you?

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
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-12-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 06:14 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You however revile me with your words. I expect it of moronic theists, but you can make decent points. Sadly your lack of tact and decorum and good taste puts you on a very low scale.

Just a thought.

I don't think he realizes how much he diminishes his points by going all asshole and shit. Not sure if he even gives a shit.

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
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-12-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
So, a US citizen who no longer lives in the US still has to pay income tax to US government?
I would like to hear a justification for that, it does sound a bit fucked up.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Why do US democrats still advocate slavery (literally)?
(27-12-2015 06:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 06:14 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You however revile me with your words. I expect it of moronic theists, but you can make decent points. Sadly your lack of tact and decorum and good taste puts you on a very low scale.

Just a thought.

I don't think he realizes how much he diminishes his points by going all asshole and shit. Not sure if he even gives a shit.

I agree, with Frank, that U.S. citizens should be allowed to renounce their citizenship if they wish, but that bit about the 'free market' had me scratching my head.

I mean it's not like, without Government regulation, companies have paid their workers in scrip that could only be spent in that company's own stores, before! Dodgy Kinda hard to buy that house, that's near that other opportunity for work, with Chuck E Cheese coins! Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheGulegon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: