• 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!

"Class Warfare"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Misterveritis said:
How does one tell the difference absent charges or a lawsuit?
Click to expand...

You don't. Hire heterosexuals, as you do, and it still happens. Hire same sex people, and it still happens. You're making a distinction that means nothing to the problem. It is not homosexuals or heterosexuals who molsest children. It is pedophiles. They can hid, as can a homosexual or a heterosexual if it were needed. But, that doesn't change anything. The fact remains that removing homosexuals or the people of the opposite sex does nothing to protect children. You're looking at it entirely wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Appears? Best you have? :2funny:
Click to expand...
The example did not show what was being argued. He did not have unsupervised access to young girls. Where do you stand on Catholic priests having unsupervised access to young boys?
 
Like the Scaife websites World Nut Daily and NewsMax are Republican Party establishment fronts that are fake news and information, designed to elect and reinforce Party dogma, (e.g. - Saddam has nukes, war on terror lies, christian coalition dogma, fears of Islam and Mexicans) in other words, stories that indoctrinate you to be behind the pre-determined Republican Party platform, leading you to water and making you drink, so to speak.
 
Misterveritis said:
The example did not show what was being argued. He did not have unsupervised access to young girls. Where do you stand on Catholic priests having unsupervised access to young boys?
Click to expand...

Gave you more than one link. You also have the Girl Scouts actively recruiting men. You know you've been proven wrong and are trying to slip out of it. And remember, I only took the first two links on a search.

:coffeepap
 
Class warfare is so cool even republicans are doing it now
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Class warfare is so cool even republicans are doing it now
Click to expand...

The GOP will tell you though just how hard it is for the wealthy to get by these days.

Here's an example:

This poor guy only has $200,000 to feed his family, which after that, only leaves him $400,000 in after tax income!




That should make half the country feel better about the less-than-$40,000-they are earning before taxes, shouldn't it?
 
Catawba said:
Because you think demanding economic equality = class warfare?
Click to expand...

There's good reason to think that.

Class war or class warfare refers to a class conflict,

Class conflict is a term used mostly by socialists, communists and anarchists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production .....

The typical example of class conflict described is class conflict within capitalism. This class conflict is seen to occur primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and takes the form of conflict over hours of work, value of wages, cost of consumer goods, the culture at work, control over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic inequality.
Click to expand...

Class war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
American said:
There's good reason to think that.



Class war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Rich Class fighting 99%, winning big-time

(MarketWatch) — "Yes, “there is class warfare, all right,” declared Warren Buffett. “But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Yes, the Rich Class is at war with you, with the 99%, a war against America. This class war actually started a generation ago, in 1981 when Ronald Reagan became president. Since then, the Rich Class has been winners. Big-time. And the 99% are the losers. Real big-time.

I am going to keep reminding you over and over of this Rich Class declaration of war and how they’re defeating America.

Why more reminders? Because, except for Buffett, the vast majority of the Rich Class really are engaged in a massive cover-up, a widespread conspiracy that includes the Super Rich, Forbes 400 billionaires, Wall Street bank CEOs, all their high-paid Washington lobbyists, all the Congressional puppets they keep in office by spending hundreds of millions on campaign payola and all the conservative presidential candidates praying the same Rich Class dogma.

Yes, Rich Class has been fighting a 30-year war to rule America
They’re fighting you, winning big-time, and you’re the loser. It’s just one generation since conservatives put Reagan in office: In those three short decades the income and wealth of the top 1% has tripled while the income of the bottom 99% of all Americans has stagnated or dropped.

Rich Class fighting 99%, winning big-time - MarketWatch
 
Boo Radley said:
Gave you more than one link. You also have the Girl Scouts actively recruiting men. You know you've been proven wrong and are trying to slip out of it. And remember, I only took the first two links on a search.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that males are given unsupervised access to young girls? I do not see any indication that this is true. What do the Girl Scouts say? I looked at their web site. I saw no indications than men have unsupervised access to young girls. I would be very surprised. So go ahead. Surprise me with your evidence.
 
Misterveritis said:
Are you arguing that males are given unsupervised access to young girls? I do not see any indication that this is true. What do the Girl Scouts say? I looked at their web site. I saw no indications than men have unsupervised access to young girls. I would be very surprised. So go ahead. Surprise me with your evidence.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this tangent is about, but if a male is a girl scout leader, he would be the supervised role model, and only one is potentially needed depending on the size of the group.

ultimately it is up to the parents of the children that decide if they are comfortable with this situation.
 
Misterveritis said:
Are you arguing that males are given unsupervised access to young girls? I do not see any indication that this is true. What do the Girl Scouts say? I looked at their web site. I saw no indications than men have unsupervised access to young girls. I would be very surprised. So go ahead. Surprise me with your evidence.
Click to expand...

I saying you clearly don't understand the difference between a pedophile and anyone else. Only pedophiles want to have sex with children. neither heterosexuals or homosexuals are interested.
 
Boo Radley said:
I saying you clearly don't understand the difference between a pedophile and anyone else. Only pedophiles want to have sex with children. neither heterosexuals or homosexuals are interested.
Click to expand...
And you are a fool. How can one tell before the damage has occurred? I am very certain that males do not have unsupervised access to young girls through the girl scouts. Apparently you believe otherwise. Awesome. And very stupid.
 
Misterveritis said:
And you are a fool. How can one tell before the damage has occurred? I am very certain that males do not have unsupervised access to young girls through the girl scouts. Apparently you believe otherwise. Awesome. And very stupid.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't. So a female pedophile is really no different than a male pedophile with young girls. And a male pedophile is no different than a female pedophile with young men. Conversely, a heterosexual male or female or a homosexual male of female is no threat to either gender. Neither is attracted to kids. So, your rules of exclusion do not help or protect anyone in any way.

Is this really hard to follow?
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you have such difficulty just saying yes?
Click to expand...
Well, that varies depending upon whether "Yes" is the correct answer or not. In this case, the correct answer was not "Yes', but rather that while the financial economy has a role and a function, it doesn't have much value when that is measured in terms of increasing demand and jobs, those being the sorts of things that are of primary interest and import when trying to beat back a recession. So, I posted that instead.

Being poorly informed in general, right-wingers typically need work on understanding the differences between the real economy and the financial economy. They are qualitatively different places. Failure to comprehend those differences often leads to such doofus misconceptions as that tax cuts for the rich will end up creating jobs and growth. That's simply backwards. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class create jobs and growth. The rich are the WORST possible people to give money to if what you are looking for is jobs and growth.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
About half of the potential working population are takers. Wasn't that the point?
Click to expand...
You haven't had an actual point insofar as I've been able to determine. You simply recite from the Little Red Book of the Right-Wing that 51% don't pay income taxes. You don't understand that number, and until I began explaining it to you, you didn't understand the concept of workers and dependents in society either. With regard to the former, understand that the number was about 23% in 2000, and that the two principal reasons why it has more than doubled since are a) the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich, and b) the Great Bush Recession. Re the latter, what proportion of people in society do you feel SHOULD be in the dependent class? Alteratively, which group presently within it would you like to see kicked out?

Misterveritis said:
And that is different how? It is a transfer of wealth from one who earned it to another who did not. It is not any different from the thief who accosts me on the street.
Click to expand...
Taxes as theft? You really have to have cut the cord to buy into such a nonsense notion as that! Do you object to the cost of magazine subscriptions or gym memberships as theft as well? No? Why not? They are the same thing.

And in the income tax case of course, the fact that the numbers make it appear as though many do not pay taxes when they actually do would of course be quite relevant to anyone interested in fact over fulmination.

Misterveritis said:
There was under $1k difference between what the average worker earns and what the takers receive from the government. Does it matter what the numbers are?
Click to expand...
It DOES matter what the numbers are and where they came from. I see you are very reluctant to disclose either one. What would be the reason for that???
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Really? So you believe that kids on camping trips are in the unsupervised care of an adult of the opposite sex? Do you believe that a coach has unsupervised access?
Click to expand...
I believe that you've once again got yourself stuck out on a limb and intend to go ahead and saw it off through ridiculous resort to whatever semantic distortions you can think up. Adults and their child charges are commonly of different genders under many different circumstances. None of your homophobic fears comes to fruition as the result of such circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Kane said:
Like the Scaife websites World Nut Daily and NewsMax are Republican Party establishment fronts that are fake news and information...
Click to expand...
Don't forget places like Cato, the Mises Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. All part of a disinformation network built out over some 35 years now first to influence, and then to dominate public discourse by flooding the market with fabricated and delberately falsified claims and commentary. Eventually, the marketplace of ideas will run them all out of business, but they can still do a lot of damage along the way.
 
Boo Radley said:
Exactly. You can't. So a female pedophile is really no different than a male pedophile with young girls. And a male pedophile is no different than a female pedophile with young men. Conversely, a heterosexual male or female or a homosexual male of female is no threat to either gender. Neither is attracted to kids. So, your rules of exclusion do not help or protect anyone in any way.

Is this really hard to follow?
Click to expand...
And around we go. Do you believe that adult males should have unsupervised access to young females? Yes? Or no?
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Well, that varies depending upon whether "Yes" is the correct answer or not. In this case, the correct answer was not "Yes', but rather that while the financial economy has a role and a function, it doesn't have much value when that is measured in terms of increasing demand and jobs, those being the sorts of things that are of primary interest and import when trying to beat back a recession. So, I posted that instead.
Click to expand...
Yes was the right answer. It matters little that you choose to dissemble.

Being poorly informed in general, right-wingers typically need work on understanding the differences between the real economy and the financial economy. They are qualitatively different places. Failure to comprehend those differences often leads to such doofus misconceptions as that tax cuts for the rich will end up creating jobs and growth. That's simply backwards. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class create jobs and growth. The rich are the WORST possible people to give money to if what you are looking for is jobs and growth.
Click to expand...
Sounds like typical, left-wing, socialist claptrap to me. Your very words show you for what you are. You show that you believe all wealth belongs to the government instead of to the people who have created it. You are a statist. You are probably a closet socialist. I get it.
 
Misterveritis said:
And around we go. Do you believe that adult males should have unsupervised access to young females? Yes? Or no?
Click to expand...

I've gone back several pages and I can't find your point here. Is there an assumption that people who are left alone with kids will harm them?
 
Cardinal Fang said:
You haven't had an actual point insofar as I've been able to determine. You simply recite from the Little Red Book of the Right-Wing that 51% don't pay income taxes.
Click to expand...
Let's just say about half. It could be 49%. It could be 51%. Are you disputing it?

You don't understand that number, and until I began explaining it to you, you didn't understand the concept of workers and dependents in society either. With regard to the former, understand that the number was about 23% in 2000, and that the two principal reasons why it has more than doubled since are a) the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich, and b) the Great Bush Recession. Re the latter, what proportion of people in society do you feel SHOULD be in the dependent class? Alteratively, which group presently within it would you like to see kicked out?
Click to expand...
I understand that your views are the views of a statist and a taker. It comes as no surprise.

Taxes as theft? You really have to have cut the cord to buy into such a nonsense notion as that!
Click to expand...
Yes. Beyond those things that are constitutional requirements all other taxes are theft. Since you are a statist and believe that all wealth belongs to the government you are unable to see the evil of it. That is why your kind is so dangerous and must be defeated.

Do you object to the cost of magazine subscriptions or gym memberships as theft as well? No? Why not? They are the same thing.
Click to expand...
They are not the same. A business cannot put me in jail if I refuse to buy what they are selling. This is more evidence of your statist beliefs.

It DOES matter what the numbers are and where they came from. I see you are very reluctant to disclose either one. What would be the reason for that???
Click to expand...
Actually it does not matter. When the government will supply all of the wants of one group of people by taking from another group of people to the extent that there is no real difference between working and taking our society is in grave danger. This is where we are today. One difference between us is that I want waya less of it. And you want more.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
I believe that you've once again got yourself stuck out on a limb and intend to go ahead and saw it off through ridiculous resort to whatever semantic distortions you can think up. Adults and their child charges are commonly of different genders under many different circumstances. None of your homophobic fears comes to fruition as the result of such circumstances.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that men should have unsupervised access to young girls? Do you believe the girl scouts allow it? Is it ever possible for you to answer with a simple yes or no?
 
taxigirl said:
I've gone back several pages and I can't find your point here. Is there an assumption that people who are left alone with kids will harm them?
Click to expand...
Do you believe that adult males should be allowed unsupervised access to young girls? Do you believe the girl scouts allow it? Yes? Or no?
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes was the right answer. It matters little that you choose to dissemble.

Sounds like typical, left-wing, socialist claptrap to me. Your very words show you for what you are. You show that you believe all wealth belongs to the government instead of to the people who have created it. You are a statist. You are probably a closet socialist. I get it.
Click to expand...
This is the customary sort of whiny rubbish that we see from right-wingers whose attempts at actual debate have all been blown to bits, the inevitable and usually speedy fate that awaits the lot of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom