Welcome to Big Dog's Remedial School for Wayward DUmmies.
I will admit, that I have no idea what you consider to be "the great social issues of our time."
What I consider to be "the" great social issues of our time is immaterial. You made a list of things that are important to
you, and made the unsupported assertion that they are "the most important social issues of our time" (an objective assertion). I smacked you for it.
Indeed, social issues mean very little when life's necessities are at risk.
You fail to see that survival and community are the ultimate social issues. Leftists promote dependence on the government and a sense of entitlement to your neighbor's property (the complete antithesis to Natural Law). When the government fails to feed you or protect you,
as it will, you won't have a life-saving relationship with the people around you. I thought I made that clear with the statement about eating your neighbors (or being eaten, naturally).
I am less-and-less concerned about these social issues these days as economic, material issues become more prominent in my life (as they are for millions of Americans).
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. You wrote the original post crowing that your side had dragged us Neandertals on the inevitable march to Utopia. It's too late to backtrack now.
How will the Republican Party survive without these wedge issues to divide people? It's a good question.
Ask yourself the same question about the Democrat Party. It is equally as valid.
I will agree to look at (and restrain) the poor and middle-classed people who suck off the government teat as soon as we enact laws that prevent rich people from sucking off the government teat. When that happens, we'll talk.
"I will agree to look at (and restrain) the poor and middle class"? "When that happens, we'll talk"? Who in the **** do you think you are? Being a typical Leftist you believe you
are the government. Time for a reality check. One day, you may be standing against a wall asking, "Does Comrade Obama know about this?"
Not even close, my friend. We are the hardest-working people on Earth. We go to work, we pay our taxes, and we pay our bills. We can continue to borrow money into the foreseeable future. I do not see what you see on this issue.
Simple- money that is borrowed
must be paid back. Otherwise it is not borrowed. Shifting possession of the IOUs, the creation of digital money (one step beyond fiat currency to imaginary money), and using one debt instrument to purchase another are not borrowing.
Two simple words apply, as they ultimately must: spend less.
Slavery ... hmm. Give me a $15/hr. minimum wage, and your slavery fantasies will evaporate.
If the minimum wage is doubled, then the labor cost of everything made or sold by minimum wage workers will double as well. The increase of cost will be passed along to the consumer. The new bar for "poverty" will be twice as high as it is now. As they say, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
In the last two presidential elections, slightly more than half of the voting public voted for the candidate who promised them more stuff that they wouldn't have to pay for.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury.When the poor and middle-class have a lot of money to spend, we all get richer.
If the "poor" have a lot of money to spend, then they are not poor. As long as our welfare class can afford smartphones, weed, manicures, and shiny rims on their cars, they are getting too damn much of my money.
We will always have our entrepreneurs. We have been the most inventive and productive people the world has ever seen, and I don't see that changing (no matter how much the "evil" left tries to spread the wealth and insure that capitalism's benefits are fairly distributed to all members of this society).
Who is John Galt?
You assume that the wealth creators will continue to hold their wallets open for you.
Why, you silly leftist, do you believe that taking the fruits of one man's labor at the point of a gun, then giving it to another who wants it, but did nothing to earn it, is considered "fairly distributed"? If you follow the same principle, the crack addict who robs you in a parking lot is entitled to the contents of your wallet, simply because he wants it. He is also entitled to take your life, for the same reason.
Strangely enough, you engaged me on economic issues (the ones I think really matter now). The "social issues" are ones I think the left has already won (for better or for worse), and you proved this point with your post.
Economic issues
are social issues, DUmbass. Economics is a social science... and John Maynard Keynes was a twat.
