Nah. It's prescious. You have to remember the Aussie spelling of the word that means, "right and correct in his arguments". Well, poor Clete. He got blown up on his silly assertion about the superior state of the Aussie economy, and it just eats at him. But as they say, become better, or become bitter.

Quote:

---

Actually, he seems to be prescient at times.

---

Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."

---

Maybe if I compliment you now and then, you'll start to like me....

I am always for you, WG. Don't always understand you, but I always want to see you do well, and I frequently like you when you are not driving me batty. I do admire your giving heart. I have no doubt that you are genuinely concerned about the less fortunate. And I am JEALOUS of your knowledge of grammar. Believe it or not, I pray for you regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I am always for you, WG. Don't always understand you, but I always want to see you do well, and I frequently like you when you are not driving me batty. I do admire your giving heart. I have no doubt that you are genuinely concerned about the less fortunate. And I am JEALOUS of your knowledge of grammar. Believe it or not, I pray for you regularly.

---

Wow! Thank you!

And you're ENVIOUS (not JEALOUS).... *grinning*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Nah. It's prescious. You have to remember the Aussie spelling of the word that means, "right and correct in his arguments". Well, poor Clete. He got blown up on his silly assertion about the superior state of the Aussie economy, and it just eats at him. But as they say, become better, or become bitter.

Thank you! That's a nice compliment. It's kind of easy on this board, but I'll still accept it.

"The definition of prescient is knowing what is going to happen before it happens."

---

JL, I think you far from

Quote:

---

right and correct in his arguments

---

in most of your arguments. Where I come from being precious means clinging to an argument like a little child even when you are wrong, and your insistence that taxation is wrong is such an argument, taxation is theft, legalised theft. Yes, I do think the state of our economy is superior to yours, even though we have seen the dismantling of our manufacturing industries because of the rise of China and US investment there. You would be better served investing in your allies than with your ideological enemies. OK our economy isn't the size of yours but considering it has become a service economy it does fairly well, and you have yet to see the true impact of CV19, once Joe gets loose you are in for a recession, how's that for prescient, by the way China owns you arse

Precious here means to be of great value.

Quote:

---

your insistence that taxation is wrong is such an argument,

---

If I had ever made such an argument, then I would agree with you.

Quote:

---

taxation is theft, legalised theft.

---

That was actually not my point either. I was referring specifically to taking tax money and giving it to individuals. It is legalized theft pure and simple, and a government enforced, involuntary system of charity. Most liberal dems support it because they incessantly call upon the rich to pay it, and I despise that cowardly approach to morality and charity.

Quote:

---

Yes, I do think the state of our economy is superior to yours,

---

You are welcome to your opinion.

Quote:

---

you have yet to see the true impact of CV19, once Joe gets loose you are in for a recession, how's that for prescient, by the way China owns you arse

---

There is certainly much there to consider. If we get by with merely a recession, it will be the blessing of God.

Quote:

---

And you're ENVIOUS (not JEALOUS).... *grinning*

---

Rats! You got me again. Your point is very well taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Precious here means to be of great value.

---

No it is actually derisive we always reverse the meaning when referring to individuals, sort of like sick means good

Quote:

---

If I had ever made such an argument, then I would agree with you.

That was actually not my point either. I was referring specifically to taking tax money and giving it to individuals. It is legalized theft pure and simple, and a government enforced, involuntary system of charity. Most liberal dems support it because they incessantly call upon the rich to pay it, and I despise that cowardly approach to morality and charity.

---

So you are against welfare in all its forms? No unemployment, No food stamps, no healthcare, no education programs. You must be against school meals, homeless shelters, etc, what a miserable outlook

Quote:

---

You are welcome to your opinion.

There is certainly much there to consider. If we get by with merely a recession, it will be the blessing of God.

---

Yes my opinion is valuable, we thought we would have a CV19 led depression but once we got on top of the virus, it was a short run recession. You see taking sensible measures proved beneficial in the long run

socialism in a nutshell ....All Out Crazy is selling 'tax the rich' sweat shirts on her web site for $58 .

Tax the Rich Sweatshirt – Official AOC Shop (ocasiocortez.com)

I heard of a scheme once employed where there was a special tax for all those with wealth exceeding 2.5 million, this should be reintroduced

Quote:

---

So you are against welfare in all its forms? No unemployment, No food stamps, no healthcare, no education programs. You must be against school meals, homeless shelters, etc, what a miserable outlook

---

In our country, unemployment is not welfare. When you work, you pay an unemployment tax that is used for that purpose. Education is certainly not welfare. As to school meals, I have no problem with feeding children.

I could probably get behind a program where everyone who works is taxed a certain amount, say 3%, that is used to fund welfare programs, which was basically the OT method of state charity. No more of this fake charity where people advocate taxing the wealthy to pay for it. If it's important, then let's all get behind it. But the spending would be limited to whatever that tax brings in. That way, no pol party could claim they had this fake concern for the poor, the kind that says, "We care so much for poor people that we are willing to force other people to take care of them." That's one of the most nauseating approaches I know of and reveals those people to be the miserable, hypocritical cowards they are. That's your "miserable outlook" in my view.

OR you could make the 3% voluntary. Then we would be able to separate the sincere from the fake real easily. "Did you check the box and pay your fed charity tax?"

And before anyone starts complaining that I am not in favor of charity, you need to come look at my checkbook first. My objection is to government sponsored, politically motivated "charity" that allows a bunch of liberal dems to act like they are wonderful because they force other people to pay for it.

Quote:

---

I heard of a scheme once employed where there was a special tax for all those with wealth exceeding 2.5 million, this should be reintroduced

---

Nope. If it's worth doing, then it's worth taxing Clete, JL, WG, Tal, Tom, and everyone else for. What gives you the authority to tell other people what to do with their money, especially when you are not willing to do it yourself with yours?

I've always paid my fair share of taxes and have no problem the least and the needy are helped by it. That's the way it's supposed to be in a great nation of great wealth that reaches all across the globe. Says more about us than all the armies, boats, and planes.

Speaks louder than the endless screaming about somebody taking your money, calling names, or trying to kick someone out of the boat we're all in. It's not your boat or my boat, it's our boat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What gives you the authority to tell other people what to do with their money, especially when you are not willing to do it yourself with yours?

---

We voters can tell other people what to do with their money because we ARE willing to do it with our own. As Tal so succinctly said, "It's not your boat or my boat, it's OUR boat!"

Quote:

---

Speaks louder than the endless screaming about somebody taking your money, calling names, or trying to kick someone out of the boat we're all in. It's not your boat or my boat, it's our boat!

---

You see me calling names, tell me about it. You see me kicking someone "out of the boat", tell me about it. Otherwise you are, shall we say, being much less than honest.

Quote:

---

We voters can tell other people what to do with their money because we ARE willing to do it with our own.

---

No you're not. You have never called for an increase in your own taxes. The incessant call of the liberal left is for an increase in someone else's taxes. And besides, where in law do you find the idea of you deciding that someone else has to engage in your idea of charity? Where is that?

And just like an answer to prayer, there is this. AOC. The gift that keeps on giving.

https://shop.ocasiocortez.com/produc...ich-sweatshirt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No you're not. You have never called for an increase in your own taxes.

---

Yes, I have, on November 3.

Sure you did.

More democrat hypocrites. London Breed, the mayor of San Fran, eight days after telling everyone to stay at home, was seen dining at one of the most highly priced restaurants in California. Steve Adler, the democrat mayor of Austin, told his servants to stay at home, but he filmed that after flying to a beach resort in Mexico for a stay in a condo. I'm sure that all of the people on this board who have been so concerned with Trump's supposed hypocrisy will join with me in condemning this.

Now the latest from the math genius who is pres elect. He warned us that we will have a quarter of a million die from COVID in December if we did not do as he says. That would require 8 thousand dead a day. At no time have we even approached HALF of that figure, but JB wants us to listen to him! Come on, man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sure you did.

---

Matthew 8:26a

Sure you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

socialism in a nutshell ....All Out Crazy is selling 'tax the rich' sweat shirts on her web site for $58 .

---

That's called free enterprise, tomder. I thought you supported that.

I guess you meant "capitalism in a nutshell".

You anti-socialist boys are still confused about what the words mean.

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

---

Sorry, tomder - lame excuse. You flubbed it.

If you would spend a little effort on research as you do for your pet projects, you would discover "democratic socialism" is not the socialism you think of. Your AOC post is such an instructive comment in how you confuse socialism with excessive capitalism. It couldn't be any clearer.

It's a bit like calling the Nazis socialists because the word Socialism was in their name. Nobody was further from socialism than Hitler's gang. But this revisionism works for the far right since truth is not their forte. Any nonsense or bizarre conspiracy theory will do as long as it serves their purpose.

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

So part of the labelling is a reference to the dictator/leader that applies it. A marketing ploy to brand the individual and rally the troops. SPIN to push an agenda.

Of course, propaganda is powerful as you witnessed for the last four years, this time it took a different form but Trump relied heavily on propaganda. Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensus despite what JL says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well?

---

No, enterpreneurship but very much out of character. Fashion always has a high markup

Sort of like the dufus charity, the dufus university, and the dufus ties.

or dufus hats

Quote:

---

Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensus

---

You do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

---

Tomder, this is so ridiculous, it's impossible to know where to start. By the time the party name was gaining adherents, it stayed with "socialist" in its name. But Hitler hated socialists and communists. Hitler's ideology, which was very confused, was based on nothing but race. Socialism is based on class. The two couldn't be further apart.

For oddball reasons, the modern-day right has seized on the NAZI name to claim Hitler was a socialist. I can expect that of illiterates, but not you, tom. The name of the party preceded Hitler by several years. You really should know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

---

You really must curb your wish to correct everyone you cannot have socialism without a social consensus. Yes you do live in a tyranny, a tyranny of taxation and for 250 years you have railed against taxation whatever the reason it is imposed. It is the spirit of your nation to be so opposed. Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good. If people were left without means there would be anarchy

Quote:

---

Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good.

---

It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

Quote:

---

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well

---

what would you like a march past or a medal. What I say to you buddy, is up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptions

Quote:

---

up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptions

---

Nah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

---

Your masterplan probably works well for you in your rural small town setting, but may need some tweaking and adjustments to accommodate the huge sprawling big city settings of urban centers with greater populations that a more industrialized, and diverse population, and working on the clock of continuous operations.

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.

Quote:

---

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.

---

Not real sure what you're talking about.

Have you figured it out yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Nah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

---

There you go making assumptions again. I have never said that anyone should be under compulsion to look after the poor or anyone else for that matter. You cannot have the common good without the ability to contribute and politicians are elected to implement policies. Also you cannot say charity is an obligations and then lament the practicalities that public charity is insufficient. I was not impressed when my government implemented the form of health care we have but many decades later I see the practicality of it. I was not impressed when my government implemented the bottomless pit of the NDIS but I do see the practicality of it. I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...28#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

---

Private charity is a feint by those who want to pay less in taxes. They know charity is not nearly enough. All the suffering and sickness described above is secondary to the love of money, their true motivation and shamelessly promoted on these pages.