Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The rich could pay for their own roads, police, bridges etc. And historically did.  Then they can even charge tolls and such :)  So it benefits them less. The rich would be just fine with no taxes and they provide the infrastructure. It's everyone else who wouldn't be happy with that.

 

The “welfare state” policies that emerged during the New Deal and post-war era, which you criticize now, is what made us a first world country.  Contrary to your suggestion, the era that proceeded it with gilded age robber barons and large swathes of society living like peasants was not ideal. 
 

Also understand that when average citizens benefit, so do the wealthy people and businesses. Business want people who are educated and skilled enough to do the work they need done and they want people affluent enough to buy the goods and services they sell.  Rich people and businesses alike need a society where general living standards are high enough that most people will generally obey the law and dutifully serve their employer.
This means that government needs to provide a certain level of public services and a certain amount of protection from ruthless businesses 

 

In capitalist economies, which actually include Canada and Scandinavia, when you consider the value of labour, wealth doesn’t really trickle down, it often trickles up. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Why do you claim that’s the situation here but not in Scandinavia?  Their programs are more generous and they’re closer to a lot more borders and developing countries than we are. 

Not here, America. It's an American study. 

They're getting millions of illegal immigrants every year now. They compete for low-end jobs, trades work and low-income housing. 

Elderly people on fixed incomes, low-income earners from the US, illegals, and people who crossed illegally but were ok'd by the Dems to stay in the US are all competing for the same housing. Lots of the illegals work under the table, but their kids, who are born in the US, will get those benefits. 

It's a system that's extremely beneficial for people who put nothing in, and it's extremely taxing on people who work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The problem with this post is that it falsely that male behaviour is normal and ideal. It also falsely implies that men are

I think you misapprehend the point of the article. It was more an explanation of why women vote liberal with far less regard to what all those 'helpful' government services cost or even how much debt we wind up with providing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

The “welfare state” policies that emerged during the New Deal and post-war era, which you criticize now, is what made us a first world country.  Contrary to your suggestion, the era that proceeded it with gilded age robber barons and large swathes of society living like peasants was not ideal. 

Kid - you are just too dumb for this conversation. I never criticized anything. I accurately pointed out the rich would be fine without taxes.  So right off the bat you screwed that up.

And no - the 'welfare state' policies are not what made america a 'first world' country.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Also understand that when average citizens benefit, so do the wealthy people and businesses.

No, historically that's not true.  HIstorically the wealthy simply become wealthier and the peasants remain in poverty creating the wealth. That's why you get things like the french revolution.

If you're going to argue something is true, pick something that doesn't have 2000 years of history proving you wrong.

As it stands, the big 'benefit' to our modern society is that the poor and the middle class do pretty well for themselves compared to the past and most people think that's a good thing. But it's not a financial 'benefit' to the rich.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

In capitalist economies, which actually include Canada and Scandinavia, when you consider the value of labour, wealth doesn’t really trickle down, it often trickles up. 

"trickle down" and "trickle up" are terms that people who don't understand keynes use. They were never his terms, and they're not accurate in either case.

The rich do just fine in a capitalist economy like ours or the us etc. They also do fine in many other models. They do just fine in aristocracies, even socialist models etc.   Putin isn't starved for cash  and neither is Xi.

But - low and middle class ONLY do well capitalist models.  So once again - capitalism is for the benefit of the poor and middle class, not the rich.

It's not complicated. 

Next time actually pay attention to what people are saying, you're just making yourself look retarded accusing others of making statements they didn't make.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That definitely sounds like a rule made up by women, and upheld by neutered man. 

TBH, probably 95% of leftists live by that rule. 

They want us all to pretend that women are the equals of men in every athletic endeavour but they can't explain why no women are in the NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL, MLS or even in the minor leagues in any of those sports.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we're seeing now is the further emasculation of western society, which was already underway especially in German and British societies, where men have been reduced to virtual ladyboys. 

Only this time trannys are being used to take it step further. The men themselves become women, fully on but even more so. More extreme, more outrageous. A characture of women. And this is specifically for presenting to the kids. 

It's many things but for one an assault on women's dignity.

Carry on...

;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Kid - you are just too dumb for this conversation. I never criticized anything. I accurately pointed out the rich would be fine without taxes.  So right off the bat you screwed that up.

My god dude.  You can't go a single thread without engaging BATTLEMODE and picking a fight with somebody.  To see this brief exchange and how quickly and nonsensically you went for insults is pathetic.  You're a sad, angry little man.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

My god dude.  You can't go a single thread without engaging BATTLEMODE and picking a fight with somebody. 

Not 'somebody' - retards.

He starts off by claiming statements i never made in an insulting fashion and then you crybaby that people are short with him.

You. Are. Toooo. Dumb. for. this. as. well.  What kind of dolt complains about people fighting by jumping in and picking a fight in a discussion he's not even part of.

Now if you're done acting like an unusually retarded dung beetle, you can go back to your comic books.

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Kid - you are just too dumb for this conversation. I never criticized anything. I accurately pointed out the rich would be fine without taxes.  So right off the bat you screwed that up.

And no - the 'welfare state' policies are not what made america a 'first world' country.

No you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

There’s a reason why the rich didn’t all emigrate to Somalia or Haiti 100 years ago.  Those places have their own local rich elite living tax-free in cloistered enclaves why haven’t our wealthy elite gone to join them?  It’s not patriotism or civic duty that keeps them here. They need us

And its a massive exaggeration for you to say to the rich could afford to privately fund all of their own roads, airports, defence, sanitation etc, out of the their own pockets much less suggest that they could do it for LESS than they pay currently.

You speak as if you think the richpay 100% of the taxes, which they don’t…businesses, government income from royalties etc, and the taxes from we non-rich peasants also pay a significant portion. And don’t forget this little thing called deficit spending which is government spending funded by Bond sales. 

And hilariously it’s completely lost on you that the rich cannot afford ANYTHING without working class peons to work for him. It is a mathematical fact that a billionaire cannot afford to pay another billionaire to pick up his garbage  A rich person can barely earn a penny or eat a sandwich without a non-rich to serve him  

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, historically that's not true.  HIstorically the wealthy simply become wealthier and the peasants remain in poverty creating the wealth. That's why you get things like the french revolution.

If you're going to argue something is true, pick something that doesn't have 2000 years of history proving you wrong.

 

You just helped made my point for me, how so you not see that?  I’m fairly certain the rich don’t want to end up like Marie Antoinette at the hands of angry peasants which is why they need the peasants to have a basic minimum quality of life of keeps them happy and productive  How do you mot understand that?  History supports my argument and theres a lot more than 2000 years of it BTW.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

trickle down" and "trickle up" are terms that people who don't understand keynes use. They were never his terms, and they're not accurate in either case.

LOL even when you say something correct you’re too ignorant to know why.  Republicans’ precious “trickle down” economic theory aka Neoliberalism was invented as a REJECTION of Keynes. Keynesian economics is what gave us the new deal “the welfare state” and the large middle class. Neoliberalism says the opposite, it says the middle class is spoiled and lazy and must be worked to the bone, businesses should never be regulated or questioned, and the rich are an oppressed that needs to be pampered  and worshiped  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - low and middle class ONLY do well capitalist models.  So once again - capitalism is for the benefit of the poor and middle class, not the rich.

Im not anti-Capitalist I’m anti-neoliberalism which is the unregulated guided age style of kleptocracy that destroys societies and economies while hiding behind the mask of capitalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

No you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

It just seems that way because you're too dumb for this, You literally gave me shit for saying something i never said.  Too dumb.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

There’s a reason why the rich didn’t all emigrate to Somalia or Haiti 100 years ago.  Those places have their own local rich elite living tax-free in cloistered enclaves why haven’t our wealthy elite gone to join them?  It’s not patriotism or civic duty that keeps them here. They need us

First off many have. Second off, many didn't need to because they already moved their money so it doesn't matter.

 

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

And its a massive exaggeration for you to say to the rich could afford to privately fund all of their own roads, airports, defence, sanitation etc, out of the their own pockets much less suggest that they could do it for LESS than they pay currently.

They could do so easily.  And that's the way it's always been. In fact many rich people already pay for their own roads airports and sanitation within their communities. Police too.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

You speak as if you think the richpay 100% of the taxes, which they don’t…businesses, government income from royalties etc, and the taxes from we non-rich peasants also pay a significant portion.

Far far far less than they consume. For example - 61 percent of income taxes in canada are paid by 20 percent of the population, Yet that 20 percent won't use 60 percent of the resources - so if there were only wealthy people they could cut their 'taxes' by 2/3 and still get the level of services they're getting today.

 

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

And don’t forget this little thing called deficit spending which is government spending funded by Bond sales. 

That's to buy votes from poor people. They're not bribing the rich going into deficit.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

And hilariously it’s completely lost on you that the rich cannot afford ANYTHING without working class peons to work for him.

Sure they can - have for thosuands of years. The working class is new. We can go back to serfs and the like very easily.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 

It is a mathematical fact that a billionaire cannot afford to pay another billionaire to pick up his garbage  A rich person can barely earn a penny or eat a sandwich without a non-rich to serve him  

So? Go fetch me a beer boy :)

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 

You just helped made my point for me, how so you not see that?

If your point is you're a retard i see it just fine.  I already addressed the issue that poor people would be very poor previously You're not saying anything new. You just don't know how to read

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 I’m fairly certain the rich don’t want to end up like Marie Antoinette at the hands of angry peasants which is why they need the peasants to have a basic minimum quality of life of keeps them happy and productive

Do you have any idea how many centuries went by before that happened? And they just made the mistake of not having a  larger army ;)

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 How do you mot understand that?  History supports my argument and theres a lot more than 2000 years of it BTW.

History shows your argument is a complete joke. For almost all of history it has been the rich and the poor - with the poor having no say and the rich living the good life with no taxes.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

LOL even when you say something correct you’re too ignorant to know why.  Republicans’ precious “trickle down” economic theory aka Neoliberalism was invented as a REJECTION of Keynes.

As noted - it was used by fools who didn't understand it as a joke attempt to discredit it, not as an actual economic theory. Which i said. Soooo - where was i wrong? Oh yeah - i wasn't.  You're a retard.

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Keynesian economics is what gave us the new deal “the welfare state” and the large middle class. Neoliberalism says the opposite, it says the middle class is spoiled and lazy and must be worked to the bone, businesses should never be regulated or questioned, and the rich are an oppressed that needs to be pampered  and worshiped  

Yeah - pretty much none of that is accurate.

But what's really funny is that you couldn't even successfully comprehend what i wrote before you got here and now you'd have us believe you can understand economics :)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Im not anti-Capitalist I’m anti-neoliberalism which is the unregulated guided age style of kleptocracy that destroys societies and economies while hiding behind the mask of capitalism. 

Nobody asked what you were. We already knew what you were just fine. You're the village dolt.

Kid  you showed up and made an ass of yourself claiming I said things i didn't and making a bunch of ridiculous statements which have proven wrong, did you really think you were going to be taken seriously, Maybe go to bed and try to do better tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

First off many have. Second off, many didn't need to because they already moved their money so it doesn't matter.

Many have moved to Somalia and Haiti?  Doubt that. Even the ones who have homes in banana republics understand that they can’t actually make any money there because the locals are too unskilled and too poor to be useful as employees or consumers. The best they can do is make their money in a first world “high-tax” country country like Canada and then export it to a banana republic afterwards. 
 

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They could do so easily.  And that's the way it's always been. In fact many rich people already pay for their own roads airports and sanitation within their communities. Police too.

They could not finance their own national infrastructure. There’s a big difference between funding your small gated community and funding your own country. You are making a fundamental error assuming that just because their direct contributions of the wealthy are disproportionate to their direct consumption that they could afford the entire bill all on their own   .
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Far far far less than they consume. For example - 61 percent of income taxes in canada are paid by 20 percent of the population, Yet that 20 percent won't use 60 percent of the resources - so if there were only wealthy people they could cut their 'taxes' by 2/3 and still get the level of services they're getting today.

 Even if I assume your numbers are accurate (which are from the right wing anti-tax Fraser Institute are undoubtedly inflated), the wealthiest 20% according to that figure is HOUSEHOLD  income of $227,000  That’s not rich, my wife and I make that much combined and we are middle class. She is a teacher and I am a mid-level office worker.   Look how much Fraser had to stretch the numbers to make it sound sensational..  

And AGAIN the rich would still rely on non-rich workers to do their work so they would need to ensure those workers don’t rebel and kill them so they would need to provide similar benefits and they would effectively have their own welfare state

 

What you continue to FAIL to understand is that even though rich people don’t directly rely on as many public services they rely on non-rich workers and customers,  who are people who need those benefits. Get it?  You’re like a doofus saying that since you don’t personally drink gasoline you don’t think you need gasoline to drive to work.
 

The”welfare state” - which includes everything from public sanitation to public education to consumer product safety and a thousand other things -provides the workers and the consumers and the servants that rich people need to stay rich and to survive.
 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Do you have any idea how many centuries went by before that happened? And they just made the mistake of not having a  larger army ;)

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes I know quite a bit of history and clearly you don’t. History is the story of elite rulers being overthrown by usurpers and peasants revolts and their own generals and their own mercenary army.   Your last comment is particularly dumb. Who do you think made up the ranks of the French army?  It’s not rich people in the army, it’s more peasants. Rich people cannot protect themselves from a peasant revolt with a peasant army.   
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

History shows your argument is a complete joke. For almost all of history it has been the rich and the poor - with the poor having no say and the rich living the good life with no taxes.

The problem is you don’t understand my argument at all you’re too busy getting emotional and resorting to insults to understand what’s being said….something the righties said only women do (or it’s only bad when women do it, take your pick).

Every historian agrees that the rise in the standard of living for the AVERAGE CITIZEN that took place in the 20th century is unprecedented in history. Before that humanity was almost universally “sick, poor and ugly”. Even the rich don’t want to go back to that. Rich people today need educated people to run their sophisticated businesses so that they can continue to make money. They’re not indifferent to whether non-rich people have the skills they need for their businesses to function. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

As noted - it was used by fools who didn't understand it as a joke attempt to discredit it, not as an actual economic theory. Which i said. Soooo - where was i wrong? Oh yeah - i wasn't.  You're a retard.

Well you’re correct that Republicans are fools and their trickle down economic theory is so pathetic its a joke but that’s about all. Again you resort to insults which is your tell that you got schooled and caught talking about sh-t you don’t understand 

 

You’ve made a lot of absurd arguments here about how all the poor rich people are so mistreated and we need them but they don’t need us. The fact is the economy a symbiotic system where the rich need the non-rich as well and they also need services from governments, not all of which they can provide to themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I think you misapprehend the point of the article. It was more an explanation of why women vote liberal with far less regard to what all those 'helpful' government services cost or even how much debt we wind up with providing them.

Those services were mostly conceived of and introduced by men and supported by male voters .
 

Constant obsessing over debt at all costs is a relatively recent political trend starting with neoliberalism in the Reagan-Thatcher era. Up until then a balanced budget was not considered so Important and even today its this white whale that rarely or never ever happens even when anti-deficit conservatives are in charge. So much so that you really have to wonder how credible the debt hysteria really is.
 

Conservatives have always skewed male and neoliberalism is a conservative cause. So while there’s a bit of a chicken and egg argument here, rather than suggest female voters are introducing “big spending” a more accurate explanation might be that male voters are abandoning “big spending”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

What we're seeing now is the further emasculation of western society, which was already underway especially in German and British societies, where men have been reduced to virtual ladyboys. 

Yeah, they chisel away at it, with catch phrases like "toxic masculinity", "pick up artist" and other words that are purely used in derogatory fashion.

Checking out a woman is disgusting now. If I glance at one without feeling shame, there is something wrong with me. 

My wife looks at me and I kiss her without asking her permission, somehow am some reprehensible male who is robbing her of her dignity o_O

I got into a heated debate about this before.

"I can read a woman's body language, and have never asked permission and never been rejected as my reads have always been good."

"Thats toxic masculinity where you assume she wants you. You should always ask her permission to touch or kiss her" 

Am sorry, but if am a woman and you can't read my cues and you ask me if you can hold my hand, hug me or ask my permission for my phone number, I would ask you when you had your sex change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why not? You've been wrong about everything else so you might as well go all in with the dumb

I've literally never been wrong about anything ever.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ummm - it WAS the world for much of it for thousands of years.

That doesn't mean it was good. We also had slavery for most of history.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yes. Well - maybe not THAT bad but generally yes.  Which is why.... taxes benefit the poor.

No shit. Like I said, taxes benefit everyone.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's just dumb.  We went thousands of years like that and guess what - infrastructure got built.  But - its use was controlled and it was  largely owned by local lords and minor nobles and yes - the poor suffered.

And look at how much better the system of infrastructure became after we abandoned that insane system. The rich benefit more from a society that protects workers. Of course, the rich will always live better no matter the society, but they're better off in a society where the workers are kept alive long enough to finish building roads and bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you tax people too far, the ones best positioned to leave, the rich, will leave.  Their money buys a lot of services.

Conservatives have been saying that for almost a century in America. It never actually happens.

The bourgeoisie will always try to save money. If they can outsource to a third world country, they will. We've tried lowering their taxes to keep jobs in America, but that doesn't work because the bourgeoisie will happily take lower taxes AND cheaper labor through outsourcing. This is why outsourcing increased under Trump, despite everything he did for the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Conservatives have been saying that for almost a century in America. It never actually happens.

The bourgeoisie will always try to save money. If they can outsource to a third world country, they will. We've tried lowering their taxes to keep jobs in America, but that doesn't work because the bourgeoisie will happily take lower taxes AND cheaper labor through outsourcing. This is why outsourcing increased under Trump, despite everything he did for the rich.

but the taxes are not really funding the government anymore

it is entirely debt funded at this point

the Fed simply prints new dollars in the trillions to fund the government

so the income taxes are actually just punitive measures against the working & middle classes

taxation without purpose, taxation without representation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but the taxes are not really funding the government anymore

it is entirely debt funded at this point

the Fed simply prints new dollars in the trillions to fund the government

so the income taxes are actually just punitive measures against the working & middle classes

taxation without purpose, taxation without representation

That's an argument for higher taxes on the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

I've literally never been wrong about anything ever.

LOL  - i'll add that to the tally :)

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

That doesn't mean it was good. We also had slavery for most of history.

Nobody said it was good at all. But it is true.

It would also be fair to say that ending slavery wasn't for the benefit of the rich.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

No shit. Like I said, taxes benefit everyone.

But they don't as we've seen.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

And look at how much better the system of infrastructure became after we abandoned that insane system.

It didn't really. A shocking amount of the infrastructure was still built over the millennia with private money. We have MORE infrastructure but that's because we've got cars and eletricity and stuff we never did before.

But consider even our telecommunications lines - something the gov't never bothered to invest in much. Almost entirely privately built and it's  a massive trillion dollar infrastructure system.

The only benefit to having taxes collected to pay for things is to those who couldn't have afforded to pay for things. And that's basically the poor and middle class. The rich could afford all of that without 'taxes'.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

The rich benefit more from a society that protects workers. Of course, the rich will always live better no matter the society, but they're better off in a society where the workers are kept alive long enough to finish building roads and bridges.

There's no need for taxes to keep the workers alive - the rich can pay them enough for their crust of bread and their hovel directly :)   And so it was for millennia.

Now - personally i think what we've got now is better.  I much prefer it. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything else in history and so more people enjoy a higher quality of life and that, imho, is good.  But then again - i'm middle class, not rich. I benefit :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...