TheRealNihilist

I'm not concerned at all. It's in humanity's best interest to destroy inferior, unproductive people from the gene pool.

Cultures that promote education, marriage before children, and 2 parent households are going to have more wealth in America than other cultures.

You simply cannot "purchase" culture.

It's the reason why most lottery winners go bankrupt after a few years.

And it is also the reason why after 15 trillion dollars and over 50 years of welfare the % of poor has not changed with the war on poverty.

It's not economics. It is culture. And you can't buy culture.

1) We should NOT be funding illegal aliens with any sort of welfare.

2) Congress does NOT represent people that cannot vote for them. If that were true, every boy would have endless candy and every girl would own a pony, and every felon would have free prostitutes.

zing!

just another shooting in the very gun restrictive state of Commyfornia, we need more laws!!!

their response sends a message that it was ok

I felt it minimized and trivialized the tragedy hence the controversy and discussions because of, I feel the comment is disrespectful.

Do you think if a loved one was killed in that attack you might take issue with her comment?

Do you think we should care what the people left behind think and feel about or is it just their tough luck?  

then goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

do you think there could be any instance in any speech where someone used those words about slavery?

in the way they "addressed" it without any real conviction or seriousness, but again that's my opinion

yes Imagine, imagination, hypothetical

I believe I have answered that already in post #2 is there something you'd like to elaborate on?  I dislike comments like that made about tragedies.  share your opinion as well, how do you feel about comments minimizing tragedies?  are you ok with what she said I mean personally, since this is all opinion anyway.    

Some guy did something.

I don't really care, and didn't watch the videos

I can't really add much more than what Dred Pirate said. She has minority constituents that have been indoctrinated to identify as skin-shade x/religion x and to not identify primarily as Americans.

Trump already declared it a hate crime before all the facts were out. Trump also pointed to a rise in antisemitism even before moving the Jerusalem embassy. The media deliberately focus on the kinds of hate crimes that push their agenda. Because the DNC isn't well liked by religious Jews, they order the MSM not to focus on it. This story won't be recycled for years like Charlottesville. I'll be surprised if the MSM mentions it at all next week. 

No, I want Omar to destroy the DNC party. Every time she makes the headlines it's like reliving Trump all over again destroying the RINOS like McCain. Both parties need to be destroyed and reformed. This year it is the DNC's turn. Even Obama and Biden can't stop it.

It's just the 1st shot over the bow in the identity politics culture war as minority groups begin squabbling for pieces of the government power pie instead of uniting as Americans. The only winners are the people in Congress who can spread hate instead of solutions to remain in power.

Lol, hi Omar. :)

I disagree, given their lack of addressing behavior and their new platforms people like her are emboldened to make off hand comments like that rather than thinking before they speak.  This is a growing trend in politics, though I see it more often and controversial in the democratic party.  the nurses play cards was said by a republican woman, however that comment was not about terrorist or murdered people so....

example of what?

 So to minimize it is disingenuous and imo dishonest.

The Democratic party is no more, not in the sense of what it once was and the issues they championed.  They are being taken over at a fairly rapid rate and soon it will be complete.  This is why she received little to no backlash from within the party, none of any real consequence.

So in reality the objection is more than just the words but the effect it has/had on the party itself.

Imagine if you will the same words used for the Mosque murders, selective moral outrage and classic hypocrisy.

It is one hour after they have logged in after the ban notification was sent. So yes, it is sufficient time to respond.

Someone else found my password would be more accurate.  

Sure, the concern of those that exercise their empathy is that this does not happen too fast so that intense pain does not afflict too many.

;|

Titanium was a bit of reflection, like a flat circle.  But yes, Titanium here.

Sure, income inequality is a thing when billionaires stumble on wealth by chance and then exercise this power to subjugate others with that power.  I am against that and do my best to resist this.

He is not dumb as fk.  He's been brainwashed.  So much of what he says is extremely rational.  As an ex fundamentalist I understand this.  It's a confusion with the facts of reality.  I like to listen to him with respect to his view of capitalism and to undertsand his intense influence on the intellectual right.  

He's poisonous because he misses some basic facts.  I't's a fucking tragedy.

idk where samurai champloo is i never saw it nor hear to much about it but when i do i do hear its good. 

What I meant by relative is that some are always worse off than others.  We may well agree that the poorest in the U.S. are much better off than the bulk of populations in others.  I was not advocating moral relativism but only that a millionaire is poor with respect to Jeff Bezos and a homeless man is able to eat and find shelter in the U.S. which is often not possible in other countries.

We are at least on the same page here in that I am opposed to Trump as an advocate for groups of disenfranchised workers whose industries have been destroyed by the market. Also, I am opposed to extreme levels of income inequality when they use wealth to oppose the market and force all other businesses out.

Ben who, Shapiro?  I think his positions are more nuanced but he does not seem to see that modern 'capitalism' is anti-market/competition and has served to create vast levels of income inequality by force not merit.

B) Increase the social security tax

Not knowing what 'being a dick' is is being a dick.  I'm banning you from the non-existent (and never will exist) kpdebate.org.

But i'm adding extra rules:  you can be banned for spelling 'lose' as 'loose', using the wrong form of there/their/they're, and omitting the u in colour.

 reducing the social security benefits from people with cushy retirements would properly facilitate a greater distribution of limited funds to those in need.

On kpdebate.org the CoC would be 'Don't be a dick'.  It has a sort of pleasing symmetry of innuendo.

I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick.  Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."

Is it impossible for us to share the same debate style and make an account on the same day?

Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story.

All the real world instances that I know of are accounted from something of considerable value, like a publicly owned resource

All studies that I know of simply redistributing fiat are not oriented towards economics in real world application, but rather effects that result from transitioning to a theoretical UBI like adapting to free money, behavior, and stress.   My experience has been that in a functional state, it does not make a whole lot of tangible difference in the studies, but of significance is that I have not seen a study in which sloth became a pervasive issue, suggesting that impersonal welfare may not translate to an endorsement of counter productivity in itself.  Although, the studies did not account for multigenerational implications.  The results typically indicated that people go on about their lives, and a significant amount report a higher quality in some intangibles, or less stress.

 That is the only place where you can fester your ideas and people can take you seriously since there isn't an academic requirement to making claims about "spirituality".

In your terms I thought my first comments were a reductio ad absurdem.  You could not ever get rid of poverty in a realistic way.

It will always be relative.

Everyone just decides what is reasonable to them because it is not going away unless you are an advocate of extinction.

I thought that suggesting outright that we kill all poor people to amend poverty was blatantly ridiculous. 

 Do you likewise have an issue when people with high income have a greater increase in taxes than the middle class?

So I can understand, in the current context we have debt to pay off, and greater tax cuts at the high end of income essentially shield some people from that burden, arguably unfair.  I have to ask though, what do you have against tax cuts?

A government is bad with money by definition, because there is no real controlling factor aside from elections, which are easily manipulatable.

I don't support single payer because I think that the government will be more efficient, I support it because private insurance companies are evil, vampiric middlemen who contribute absolute zero positive things to health care while obscuring pricing signals and hiding the true costs of our ridiculous healthcare system, then slurping a huge cut for themselves off the top of the whole mess. They deserve to die, and while I would prefer to see their executives executed by firing squad I will settle for seeing their companies dismantled.

... that actually proves my point. People, I imagine retired people and mothers, got part time jobs because the 1k a year put them in a more comfortable position. But then again I'd have to see more statistics as there are a lot of confounding variables. But once again; a huge number of people dropping out of employment wouldn't be a good thing. That's not what UBI is meant to do; it's meant to supplement a full time or part time wage. As automation-driven unemployment increases, the UBI could be raised. 

Alaska gives people roughly 1k A YEAR. That's not enough to supplement part time work, but it does help people pay down debts and invest a bit in the local economy. So I wouldn't expect that effect to show up.

Why don't you think that?

Yeah, it's up to them to make themselves wealthy. This just gives everyone a leg up.

It's basic economics. Consumer economies drive economic growth, and handing people money creates a consumer economy.

...once again, this is just basic logic. Poverty is defined as a lack of wealth. Giving people money by definition fights poverty. This is an improvement of the system. There are claims that you don't ask for 'evidence' for because they are self-evident.

I don't. Capitalism is based on a proletariat class which needs to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in return for a wage. As automation increases efficiency, what you are going to end up with is a large working class which wants to labor but which cannot (if we don't intervene). The American economist Henry George covered this extensively in his book 'Poverty and Progress'.

I already said, Alaska gives people roughly 1k A YEAR. That's not enough to supplement part time work, but it does help people pay down debts and invest a bit in the local economy. So I wouldn't expect that effect to show up.

It's not supposed to; wages are going to become increasingly obsolete.

Yes it will, since student success has more to do with parental involvement than with school funding. Taking people out of a scarcity mindset allows them to focus on small but important things like their child's school performance.

Obviously not, that's a different program which requires different policies.

That's because Alaska didn't give them 1k a month. 1k a month is enough to hold you over working a job with pay that isn't quite as great. 1k a year is not. And I don't get this bizarre fascination that you have with people quitting their jobs as a sign of success. Maybe people kept their jobs because they liked them? I wouldn't quit my job if I got $1,000 a month. I doubt my father or brother would either. But there is a small minority of people who want to quit but are afraid to. UBI would help them, which would put more pressure on businesses to treat their workers better as a result.

Of course, how do they define 'jobs'? The entire point of UBI is that it frees people to pursue unorthodox ways to make money, like artisan work or part-time work. Yangs UBI also includes a huge boost to trade schools as well, which would help to increase the number of self-employed people doing difficult to automate work. Your standards for success also seem rather bizarre. You complain about the Alaskan trial not leading to people leaving their jobs, and then complain about the Finnish one not leading to people working more. Which is your standard for a successful UBI program? Because both are exactly what I would expect: increased happiness, reduced anxiety and stress, a bit more part time work, but no huge change in standard, old-fashioned employment.

To help people rise out of poverty and to create consumer markets in impoverished areas. To increase negotiating power of both individuals and unions. The aims are manifold.

This argument can be used against literally any social program.

Yeah it's an anecdote. An anecdote is a good argument against an inaccurate absolute statement.

All evidence which is not sensory is ultimately based on anecdotes. The problem with individual anecdotes is that they are limited in scope. They're  not good for proving trends, but they are good for disproving inaccurate statements with a counter example. If someone says 'there are no northern lights', saying 'I've been to Alaska and I saw the northern lights' is a good counter argument.

What on earth do you mean? We KNOW how much it costs to administer SS now. We also know how many billionaires there are in the US. If we multiply that number by 12,000, we know how much the UBI will cost and we can compare that number to the administration figure.

Some unions enthusiastically endorse UBI because it increases their negotiating power. Think about a strike. If people have UBI, they can strike and then survive short term on the UBI. Without it, it is much harder to strike. I think that getting rid of private health insurance companies is really important, but they're two completely different problems.

https://basicincome.org/news/2016/09/uk-major-trade-union-federation-endorses-ubi/

https://onlabor.org/andy-stern-on-universal-basic-income/

I'm sure it was fully justified - whoever it was and whatever it was for.