Equality or Equity?

[Deluge]

Which do you prefer? 

[eyeball]

More of the former will yield more of the latter.

It goes without saying you clowns will argue otherwise but it is what it is.

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

More of the former will yield more of the latter.

It goes without saying you clowns will argue otherwise but it is what it is.

No, more of the former means more you communists can take from the former. Stop being deceitful you duplicitous a$$hole. 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No, more of the former means more you communists can take from the former. Stop being deceitful you duplicitous a$$hole. 

Honestly, he's correct in a sense. More of the former will lead to everyone except a handful of elite being impoverished and unable to provide for themselves outside of the control of the 'masters' of the system, and in that respect we'd all have the same opportunities AND outcome. They would just all be really really bad   

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Honestly, he's correct in a sense. More of the former will lead to everyone except a handful of elite being impoverished and unable to provide for themselves outside of the control of the 'masters' of the system, and in that respect we'd all have the same opportunities AND outcome. They would just all be really really bad   

What I'm saying is the money the left takes goes to shit like government expansion and npo's. The poor (who by far need it the most) just stay poor. 

"Equity" is a facade. It's just a sneaky way for government to pillage the hardworking and the rich. 

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, Deluge said:

What I'm saying is the money the left takes goes to shit like government expansion and npo's. The poor (who by far need it the most) just stay poor. 

"Equity" is a facade. It's just a sneaky way for government to pillage the hardworking and the rich. 

So what you should really be asking is;

Which do you prefer?

Government - we look out for one another.

No government - it's everyone for themselves.

[Deluge]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So what you should really be asking is;

Which do you prefer?

Government - we look out for one another.

No government - it's everyone for themselves.

Too intellectually dishonest. 

It's like this:

Which do you prefer? 

More Government - We take from the rich and hardworking, expand on our power, give to our npo's, and toss a few scraps to the poor. 

Less Government - Equal opportunity for all.

Edited 15 hours ago by Deluge

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

What I'm saying is the money the left takes goes to shit like government expansion and npo's. The poor (who by far need it the most) just stay poor. 

"Equity" is a facade. It's just a sneaky way for government to pillage the hardworking and the rich. 

Everybody knows this, to be honest with you we both know that your original post was a bit of a leading question.

The left believes that you can somehow make everybody equal by taking a whole bunch away from some people and giving it free of charge to other people. The right realizes that not only is that morally bankrupt it actually doesn't work in the slightest. It just drags everybody down. And unfortunately even legitimately disadvantaged people in that circumstance are not helped, they wind up suffering worse

The correct answer to ending poverty and giving people a good life, freedom and fairness is to expand opportunity.

I'm sure you've heard this Adrian Rogers quote, but it's worth repeating for left wing dingbats like Eyeball

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everybody knows this, to be honest with you we both know that your original post was a bit of a leading question.

The left believes that you can somehow make everybody equal by taking a whole bunch away from some people and giving it free of charge to other people. The right realizes that not only is that morally bankrupt it actually doesn't work in the slightest. It just drags everybody down. And unfortunately even legitimately disadvantaged people in that circumstance are not helped, they wind up suffering worse

The correct answer to ending poverty and giving people a good life, freedom and fairness is to expand opportunity.

I'm sure you've heard this Adrian Rogers quote, but it's worth repeating for left wing dingbats like Eyeball

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

God that is so true.

A friend of mine shared that with me years and years ago, and I had forgotten about it. 

[gatomontes99]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So what you should really be asking is;

Which do you prefer?

Government - we look out for one another.

No government - it's everyone for themselves.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

God that is so true.

A friend of mine shared that with me years and years ago, and I had forgotten about it. 

Well seeing as we're in a sharing mood, watch this. It's short, but it is one of the finest pieces of writing i've ever seen to very succinctly explain the exact issue you're raising right now and the culture war around it. It is entirely worth the watch

It's worth mentioning, this was made BEFORE trump got elected the FIRST time.  Amazing piece of work. 

 

9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

Mild concussion i suspect.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Too intellectually dishonest. 

It's like this:

Which do you prefer? 

More Government - 

Less Government - 

Something in the middle.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The left believes that you can somehow make everybody equal by taking a whole bunch away from some people and giving it free of charge to other people.

Not me. I believe inequality thrives in the absence of equal access to lawmakers that wealth enjoys. The belief you mentioned is what inevitably results when people realize the government is playing favourites.

Of course you disagree because it's what you do.

 

 

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

Listening to right wingers gush about how hard done by wealth is - it's so unfair.

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

I think the goal is to concentrate wealth by accommodating it.

[Aristides]

Two different things.

Equal opportunity yes.

When it comes to equal outcomes it depends on what you are talking about.

[gatomontes99]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Listening to right wingers gush about how hard done by wealth is - it's so unfair.

In english please.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Not me. I believe inequality thrives in the absence of equal access to lawmakers that wealth enjoys.

Definitely you, you've gone on for ages about how we should tax the rich.  And your solution to "equal access' is to make the rich poor. 

Sorry kid, but this is like when you tried to deny supporting terrorists and went on about how you support the terrorists.  You absolutely do believe that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. 

And that's just not true 

[Legato]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

So what you should really be asking is;

Which do you prefer?

Government - we look out for one another.

No government - it's everyone for themselves.

You got it wrong....

More like.....

Government - it's everyone for themselves.

No government - we look out for one another.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

In english please.

Try going through it word by word with a dictionary.

But maybe start with the word disingenuous.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Definitely you, you've gone on for ages about how we should tax the rich.  And your solution to "equal access' is to make the rich poor.

Only because making access equal is off the table.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kid, but this is like when you tried to deny supporting terrorists and went on about how you support the terrorists.

No, this is just you spinning straw.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You absolutely do believe that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. 

And that's just not true.

And you believe making the rich richer makes everyone rich.

Prove it.

1 hour ago, Legato said:

You got it wrong....

More like.....

Government - it's everyone for themselves.

No government - we look out for one another.

Ever the contrarian aren't you?

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

But maybe start with the word disingenuous.

It just has a picture of you.....

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only because making access equal is off the table.

Nonsense.  And we've seen this little dance of yours before. Access before the law is pretty equally available these days 

Quote

No, this is just you spinning straw.

No but a blank and vapid denial of the facts are about all i expected of you

Quote

And you believe making the rich richer makes everyone rich.

History is hard to argue with. The place where the standard of living is highest is also the places with the wealthiest people.  That's how it works. As i've explained wealth is 'activity', not a finite resource. There's no "wealthonium" out there you can divvy up or the like.  When people become successful the people around them become more successful and on it goes. 

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other model in the history of man. 

Quote

Prove it.

 

Prove i'm wrong. And if you even try to claim that it's my job to prove I'm right but then you can start with all of the claims you've made here that you haven't proved first. I've actually provided all of this information to you before with regards to wealth, and it's certainly no secret it's easy to research

 

 

 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It just has a picture of you.....

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Access before the law is pretty equally available these days.

Strawman.

I said access to lawmakers. But access to law-keepers is pretty unequal too...see SNL-Lavalin Affair.

[taxme]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

So what you should really be asking is;

Which do you prefer?

Government - we look out for one another.

No government - it's everyone for themselves.

Government has always been the problem and never the solution. Let merit and hard work be our guide. 

I bet that you have not noticed as of yet that Canadians are finding work hard to find while new immigrants and refugees just off the boat get the government to find them work, and thus, taking jobs away from born in Canada Canadians. 

Immigration is not our strength. It is our weakness. This lieberal government has brought in hundreds of thousands of foreign temporary workers while Canadians born in Canada have a problem finding work. Immigration is the problem, lefty. 

 

Here in BC, foreign students from 3rd world countries, especially East Indians, is all we see at fast food joints like Burger King and 7/11's and gas stations. They come here as foreign temporary students and get most of the jobs that Canadians should be getting. No white people are hardly ever found at those places. Canadian born people need those jobs also to try and make money to pay for their education also.

But here in multicultural Canada, it is always about foreigners and never Canadians. 3rd world immigrants and temporary students is something we need less of. Of course, what we really need is no more immigration of any kind. Let's get Canadians back to work first. Maybe 3rd world next, maybe.