• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    109
another one who believes fairy tales!

I guess you don't know anything about Scandinavian economies?

Yeah, yeah, liberals are quick to trot out the Scandinavian economies every time they want to socialize something in the US. It takes willful ignorance to completely misunderstand the striking differences between them and us, that make their way completely incompatible with our economy and culture. The difference in size, population and difference demographics are just three things that make their socialism incompatible with the US. If you like it so much, why not move there for about five years and see how it is? Liberals never seem to understand that things just don't scale up as easy as they think it will.
 
You are aware that economic is closer to astrology than it is to physics, right?

It is not a "hard" science.

So save your indignation.

And sociology is closer to scientology.
 
And sociology is closer to scientology.

No it isn't.

One is a "soft" science, the other is a religion.

I always find it amusing when folks like you diamiss climate science and laud economics when they are pretty much the same thing.

Attempts to quantify dynamic systems by the application of mathematical models.

Neither are "hard" sciences. They don't produce universally reproducible results.

2+2 ALWAYS equals 4. Raising taxes is sometimes followed by increased revenue. And sometimes it isn't. No true causal link can be established.

So your snotty dismissal of my opinion is still just YOUR opinion, and economics isn't "real" science.

Your entrail readers have no more or less credibility than mine just because yours tell you what you want to hear.
 
If you believe its a problem, and you then engage our marketplace in an effort to solve that problem, I think it did its job.
 
No it isn't.

One is a "soft" science, the other is a religion.

I always find it amusing when folks like you diamiss climate science and laud economics when they are pretty much the same thing.

Attempts to quantify dynamic systems by the application of mathematical models.

Neither are "hard" sciences. They don't produce universally reproducible results.

2+2 ALWAYS equals 4. Raising taxes is sometimes followed by increased revenue. And sometimes it isn't. No true causal link can be established.

So your snotty dismissal of my opinion is still just YOUR opinion, and economics isn't "real" science.

Your entrail readers have no more or less credibility than mine just because yours tell you what you want to hear.

Any area of study that asks readers to use their (sociological) imagination to come up with theories about the world is a religion. Well I sociologically imagine that sociology is sociologically imagined. Checkmate.
 
Yeah, yeah, liberals are quick to trot out the Scandinavian economies every time they want to socialize something in the US. It takes willful ignorance to completely misunderstand the striking differences between them and us, that make their way completely incompatible with our economy and culture. The difference in size, population and difference demographics are just three things that make their socialism incompatible with the US. If you like it so much, why not move there for about five years and see how it is? Liberals never seem to understand that things just don't scale up as easy as they think it will.

See my post. I already dealt with her little fantasies ;)
 
Any area of study that asks readers to use their (sociological) imagination to come up with theories about the world is a religion. Well I sociologically imagine that sociology is sociologically imagined. Checkmate.

So economics is a religion now?

Its supposed to account for human nature, right?

Thats sociology.
 
So economics is a religion now?

Its supposed to account for human nature, right?

Thats sociology.

At least economics uses mathematical models and attempts to prove correlation/causation. Sociology is purely based on interpretation of social constructions. And the entire study is socially constructed. How ironic.
 
why is it right whingers are so anti education and anti fact?

why are they so prone to conspiracy theories?

why is it that liberals can only repeat what they are told and can't think for themselves?
 
I made no statements regarding economics. I was commenting on those who feel justified in controlling other people's behavior and taking their property.

as I said, it is obvious that you confuse ideology with economics.
 
Yeah, yeah, liberals are quick to trot out the Scandinavian economies every time they want to socialize something in the US. It takes willful ignorance to completely misunderstand the striking differences between them and us, that make their way completely incompatible with our economy and culture. The difference in size, population and difference demographics are just three things that make their socialism incompatible with the US. If you like it so much, why not move there for about five years and see how it is? Liberals never seem to understand that things just don't scale up as easy as they think it will.

so why has the US - which was so advanced, started to go backwards?
 
so why has the US - which was so advanced, started to go backwards?

00003011.jpgomics
 
as I said, it is obvious that you confuse ideology with economics.

Do you think it is justified to use interpersonal violence against someone who has not harmed anyone's person or property?

And please note, that is not a question about economics. It is a question about ethics.
 
And please note, that is not a question about economics. It is a question about ethics.

and highly flamable, too, considering it is a question constructed completely from straw.
 
and highly flamable, too, considering it is a question constructed completely from straw.

Nope. I am not misstating anyone's position and then arguing against that. I am asking a simple question.
 
Do you think it is justified to use interpersonal violence against someone who has not harmed anyone's person or property?

And please note, that is not a question about economics. It is a question about ethics.

that is too cryptic for me .... can you explain how that is relevant to anything I have said?
 
that is too cryptic for me .... can you explain how that is relevant to anything I have said?

Sure, earlier I said this:
Or perhaps he has to much invested in his own ability to control his own person and property. The hand wringing ninnies, as he calls them, inevitably want control over our person (making us do things) and our property (taking things from us).

You responded that my statement was a fantasy.

However, my statement was simply an observation that there are many people who think that it is justifiable to use interpersonal force against people in order to accomplish their ends.

In my opinion, interpersonal force is ONLY justified as a RESPONSE to harm (i.e. unsolicited actions that physically affect another's person or property). There is no justification for using interpersonal violence against someone who has not not harmed anyone or their property.

So, in order to understand where you're coming from, I asked you your opinion on the subject. Do you think is it justified to initiate interpersonal violence against someone who is not or has not harmed someone else?
 
So you accept the premise, glad you took the time to answer.

Yes, I do acknowledge fact and truth rather than being blinded by ideology.

thank you for noticing.
 
Sure, earlier I said this:


You responded that my statement was a fantasy.

However, my statement was simply an observation that there are many people who think that it is justifiable to use interpersonal force against people in order to accomplish their ends.

In my opinion, interpersonal force is ONLY justified as a RESPONSE to harm (i.e. unsolicited actions that physically affect another's person or property). There is no justification for using interpersonal violence against someone who has not not harmed anyone or their property.

So, in order to understand where you're coming from, I asked you your opinion on the subject. Do you think is it justified to initiate interpersonal violence against someone who is not or has not harmed someone else?

the important phrase is that bolded above ... in your opinion there is somehow a connection with interpersonal violence, but I don't see that.

This probably indicates that you are far more likely than I to use violence in trying to resolve differences. :)
 
the important phrase is that bolded above ... in your opinion there is somehow a connection with interpersonal violence, but I don't see that.

This probably indicates that you are far more likely than I to use violence in trying to resolve differences. :)

Quite the contrary. For example, I would wager that between the two of you, you are far more likely to use violence than he is to force your opinion of the proper amount I should be giving to charity, to healthcare for the elderly, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom