Democrate part is communist

9-10ths_Penguin · Dec 5, 2019

Jollybear said:
No, there is incentives to not polute. The incentives is you dont want your environment to be dirty or toxic a d you want your costumers support.

But these aren't monetary incentives. When you were ranting about "communism," it was monetary incentives you kept going on about.

If "you don't want your environment to be dirty" is enough of an incentive to protect the environment under capitalism, then "the satisfaction of a job well done" enough of an incentive under "communism."

You do understand that you're being hypocritical here, right? If workers need a monetary incentive of wages to work, then corporations also need a monetary incentive not to pollute.

metis · Dec 5, 2019

Jollybear said:
Its ABLE BODIED people trump is after. Not the others.

So, exactly how is Trump going to figure out whom these 700,000 are? And how did they even come up with that figure in the first place? And if you believe in what Trump and his staff actually say, then I gotta bridge across the Sahara to sell ya.

Over and over again this administration has made it abundantly clear that they put $ over people, and if you can't see that they you need to take the blinders off and welcome in reality. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single country in the world that nowadays relies on charity to support those in need-- not one-- and that should tell even you something!

The message of Christ and the Apostles is that we must do our best as a society to help and protect those in need. As I mentioned before, this was not just left up to charity for reasons already covered, and no country does it today.

But then, since you pick & choose what to believe out of the Gospel, why should I expect anything different from you. The fact that you are so willing to let people suffer, including children, is antithetical to the Gospel. And do you even have the slightest clue what this will likely do to the crime rate? Economists tell us that income disparity is the number one cause for higher rates of crime.

Augustus · Dec 6, 2019

Jollybear said:
No wer not. In fact the statistics show that on average right wingers give more to charities then lefties. So much for lefties compassion. There a bunch of hypocrites. All they want is government to steel from the ritch to give to them.

Republicans give significantly more to their own religious congregation (as more go to church)
Pubs/Dems give equally to religious charities other than their own congregations
Dems give more to secular charities

Overall, Pubs give slightly more, but only because more of them go to church and thus they donate more to their own religious congregation. Outside of this, Dems give slightly more.

Jollybear · Dec 6, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
But these aren't monetary incentives. When you were ranting about "communism," it was monetary incentives you kept going on about.

If "you don't want your environment to be dirty" is enough of an incentive to protect the environment under capitalism, then "the satisfaction of a job well done" enough of an incentive under "communism."

You do understand that you're being hypocritical here, right? If workers need a monetary incentive of wages to work, then corporations also need a monetary incentive not to pollute.

No, im not being hypocritical. I already told you the corporations have a monetary incentive to not polute. That incentive is to keep recieving support from there costumers.

Jollybear · Dec 6, 2019

metis said:
So, exactly how is Trump going to figure out whom these 700,000 are? And how did they even come up with that figure in the first place? And if you believe in what Trump and his staff actually say, then I gotta bridge across the Sahara to sell ya.

I dont know how they will figure out whos able bodied. A questionar along with documented proof would be my gauss. Good enough.

Over and over again this administration has made it abundantly clear that they put $ over people, and if you can't see that they you need to take the blinders off and welcome in reality.

So to try to put people to work is $ over people? Ya, ok then. And i need a reality check? The less subsidies the more $ is in everyones pocket. Thats looking out for workers (i.e people).

The fact of the matter is that there is not a single country in the world that nowadays relies on charity to support those in need-- not one-- and that should tell even you something!

Thats BS. And you tell me to believe in the FULL gospel? Give me a break.

The message of Christ and the Apostles is that we must do our best as a society to help and protect those in need. As I mentioned before, this was not just left up to charity for reasons already covered, and no country does it today.

I already refuted you in my last post to you. Remember the examples in the gospel where the ritch and the poor widow gave VOLUNTARILY? christ never tought that government force giving to to the poor by taking from others. He tought that YOU personally do it of your own volition. But instead of responding and refuting that last post, you respond with this post in a very STUBBORN way.

But then, since you pick & choose what to believe out of the Gospel, why should I expect anything different from you.

Looks like its YOU that picks and chooses what to believe out of the gospel since you LIE about charity, and you PROMOTE government steeling. You also twist the scriptures out of your own stubborn ways. Remember, the scriptures themselves say if you twist them youl be destroyed. You dont seam to care about that either.

The fact that you are so willing to let people suffer, including children, is antithetical to the Gospel.

Dont put words in my mouth.

And do you even have the slightest clue what this will likely do to the crime rate? Economists tell us that income disparity is the number one cause for higher rates of crime.

Those that commit crime, punish them. Or go get a job.

Jollybear · Dec 6, 2019

Augustus said:
Republicans give significantly more to their own religious congregation (as more go to church)

Pubs/Dems give equally to religious charities other than their own congregations

Dems give more to secular charities

Overall, Pubs give slightly more, but only because more of them go to church and thus they donate more to their own religious congregation. Outside of this, Dems give slightly more.

No, dems dont give slightly more. Not according to statistics anyway. Mayby to your assumptions that youd LIKE to be true.

But, the reality is, repubs give more. Dems dont. Yet dems are the ones pushing for government to take care of the poor more then repubs. Jee i wonder why? Could it be because the dems dont like VOLUNTARILY helping the poor as much as repubs? Yep.

So, you dems quit PRETENDING you love the poor and needy so much. Because you dont, you liers!

Skreeper · Dec 6, 2019

Jollybear said:
No, im not being hypocritical. I already told you the corporations have a monetary incentive to not polute. That incentive is to keep recieving support from there costumers.

This doesn't work like that in the real world.

Just look at Nestlé... This company is the most evil corporation on the planet but they still are incredibly successful. Your every day consumer just doesn't care enough about the environment or other issues and just wants a good product even if children in China or whatever made it.

Corporations don't have a incentive not to pollute since unfortunately most customers don't seem to care.

Augustus · Dec 6, 2019

Jollybear said:
No, dems dont give slightly more. Not according to statistics anyway. Mayby to your assumptions that youd LIKE to be true.

But, the reality is, repubs give more.

As I said, 'according to statistics', Pubs give slightly more overall, but only because they donate more to their local congregation - a charity. If you don't go to church, you don't have a local congregation to donate to.

Other than that, Dems give slightly more.

see: Partisan Differences in Nonpartisan Activity: The Case of Charitable Giving

or: Republicans give more to charity – but not because they oppose income redistribution

Jollybear said:
Yet dems are the ones pushing for government to take care of the poor more then repubs. Jee i wonder why? Could it be because the dems dont like VOLUNTARILY helping the poor as much as repubs? Yep.

So, you dems quit PRETENDING you love the poor and needy so much. Because you dont, you liers!

So much bitterness based on such ignorance :shrug:

SkepticThinker · Dec 6, 2019

Jollybear said:
No, im not being hypocritical. I already told you the corporations have a monetary incentive to not polute. That incentive is to keep recieving support from there costumers.

Oh is that so? Well somebody should probaby tell that to Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, Danone, and Mondelez International, for starters. They've been polluting the water and land of developing countries for years now, with little to no consequence. Probably because the people in those underdeveloped countries don't have the power to fight back and kick them out.

I don't know where you get the idea that these big corporations will just do the right thing, especially when it conflicts with their bottom line (money!). Did you look up the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire or Radium Girls, as I asked you to do last time we talked? Those are just more examples of how corporations in the past have put monetary gain ahead of worker safety and why people got fed up and decided to fight for the right to safe working conditions. People have to fight for this stuff because historically, corporations have not done the right thing, as you seem to suggest they will always do.

SkepticThinker · Dec 6, 2019

Jollybear said:
I dont know how they will figure out whos able bodied. A questionar along with documented proof would be my gauss. Good enough.

Are you aware that "able-bodied" people who hold jobs at Wal-Mart for example, still need to collect food stamps because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them a living wage?

Are they the "abled-bodied" people who will be kicked off food stamps?

Jollybear said:
So to try to put people to work is $ over people? Ya, ok then. And i need a reality check? The less subsidies the more $ is in everyones pocket. Thats looking out for workers (i.e people).

Well maybe if it weren’t for that giant tax cut for the rich, they wouldn’t have to cut food stamps for the needy. That just tells you where their priorities lie.

How is cutting off peoples’ means to obtain food to feed their families helping them in any way?

Jollybear said:
Thats BS. And you tell me to believe in the FULL gospel? Give me a break.

Most, if not all developed countries have government-provided safety nets to help the poor. Not BS.

Jollybear said:
Those that commit crime, punish them. Or go get a job.

Missed/ignored the point.

Jollybear · Dec 7, 2019

Skreeper said:
This doesn't work like that in the real world.

Just look at Nestlé... This company is the most evil corporation on the planet but they still are incredibly successful. Your every day consumer just doesn't care enough about the environment or other issues and just wants a good product even if children in China or whatever made it.

Corporations don't have a incentive not to pollute since unfortunately most customers don't seem to care.

And governments dont seam to care either

EPA Pardons Itself in the Animas River Pollution Case

And nestle does appear to see the incentive.

Nestlé takes action to reduce plastic waste in the environment

Jollybear · Dec 7, 2019

SkepticThinker said:
Are you aware that "able-bodied" people who hold jobs at Wal-Mart for example, still need to collect food stamps because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them a living wage?

Are they the "abled-bodied" people who will be kicked off food stamps?

Get full time or 2 jobs or a room mate. Take responsibility. Move up the ladder. Walmart does pay enough for there workers to buy food. Stop making dumb **** up.

Well maybe if it weren’t for that giant tax cut for the rich, they wouldn’t have to cut food stamps for the needy. That just tells you where their priorities lie.

Yea, there priorities are to create jobs for those people on food stamps. Impower the poor, not feed them like babies.

How is cutting off peoples’ means to obtain food to feed their families helping them in any way?

Go get a job. Earn your living. Dont depend on others.

Most, if not all developed countries have government-provided safety nets to help the poor. Not BS.

I dont care. No able minded/bodied person should be on food stamps.

Subduction Zone · Dec 7, 2019

SkepticThinker said:
Are you aware that "able-bodied" people who hold jobs at Wal-Mart for example, still need to collect food stamps because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them a living wage?

Are they the "abled-bodied" people who will be kicked off food stamps?

Not to worry, Trump has a solution for that. Get rid of food stamps, just in time for the holidays:

Trump Administration Cuts Food Stamps - 50th Anniversary of Fred Hampton's Death

Dan From Smithville · Dec 7, 2019

Jollybear said:
Get full time or 2 jobs or a room mate. Take responsibility. Move up the ladder. Walmart does pay enough for there workers to buy food. Stop making dumb **** up.

Yea, there priorities are to create jobs for those people on food stamps. Impower the poor, not feed them like babies.

Go get a job. Earn your living. Dont depend on others.

I dont care. No able minded/bodied person should be on food stamps.

You are a real compassionate guy. A credit to Christian values and the examples of Christ.

Jollybear · Dec 7, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
You are a real compassionate guy. A credit to Christian values and the examples of Christ.

2 thesolonians 2:10

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

You dont get to decide what christianity is. The bible is the authority on that. Not me, not you.

Also

Mark 6:35-37

By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. Send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

But he answered, “YOU GIVE them something to eat.”

in otherwords, not government take from you then they take a percent for themselves, since there the buracracy, then they give the rest to the needy. No, but, YOU give them something to eat.

Compassion is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACCORDING TO Jesus.

Dan From Smithville · Dec 7, 2019

Jollybear said:
2 thesolonians 2:10

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

You dont get to decide what christianity is. The bible is the authority on that. Not me, not you.

Also

Mark 6:35-37

By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. Send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

But he answered, “YOU GIVE them something to eat.”

in otherwords, not government take from you then they take a percent for themselves, since there the buracracy, then they give the rest to the needy. No, but, YOU give them something to eat.

Compassion is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACCORDING TO Jesus.

i said it once, I'll say it again. What compassion. What honesty. A true credit to Christian values and a fine example of the teachings of Christ.

Jollybear · Dec 7, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
i said it once, I'll say it again. What compassion. What honesty. A true credit to Christian values and a fine example of the teachings of Christ.

Oh, ok, so just ignore everything i just said and sourced and that makes it all better, huh?

Dan From Smithville · Dec 7, 2019

Jollybear said:
Oh, ok, so just ignore everything i just said and sourced and that makes it all better, huh?

The example you set deserves recognition and says it all. We know you by your fruits.

Jollybear · Dec 8, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
The example you set deserves recognition and says it all. We know you by your fruits.

Ya, ok then. Sourcing and making solid arguments according to you is bad "fruit" but actually making a ligitimate counter argument dont need to be done.

Ya, keep telling yourself that. That is what REAL bad "fruit" is.

Dan From Smithville · Dec 8, 2019

Jollybear said:
Ya, ok then. Sourcing and making solid arguments according to you is bad "fruit" but actually making a ligitimate counter argument dont need to be done.

Ya, keep telling yourself that. That is what REAL bad "fruit" is.

Not only can you recognize them by their fruits, but nuts too.

You keep telling yourself you presented a reasoned argument that was well supported. Why break your streak now.

Democrate part is communist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

…

Hey

Hey

Hey

Member

…

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Hey

Hey

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Hey

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Hey

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Hey

Recently discovered my planet of origin.