You should have no say in what happens to money that a person earns during his life because you didn't earn it. The person who earned should have the right to give it to whomever they want.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Along those lines.... @screwduke1
Ex-Colts lineman Joe Staysniak arrested after displaying firearm during domestic dispute involving son: police
Ex-Indianapolis Colts offensive lineman Joe Staysniak was arrested early Tuesday morning after allegedly displaying a firearm during a dispute with his son just before midnight, police say.
Or the society that provided them the opportunity to earn it should. You don’t even have the unlimited, untaxed gifting of money you’re suggesting currently in America. Large gifts are taxed.
'Frustrated by government and corporate inaction following the toxic hazardous materials train wreck of Feb. 3, conservative Benny Johnson took $20,000 his YouTube channel earned last month and gave envelopes filled with $1,000 in cash to 20 residents living by the railroad tracks.'
It's yet to be determined if man can develop something better than Republican form of Government coupled with capitalism. Time will tell. It appears, although I haven't spent a lot of time researching it, that the index above measures how socialistic a country is more than true economic mobility. That being said, I do think our Government has been gradually reducing freedom, economic and otherwise, and this has hurt people's ability to act according to what is in their best interest. So we can definitely improve upon what we are doing today. My definition of improvement though, is probably much different than yours. I think more freedom for individuals, not less.Of course there are countries with more opportunities. Twenty six of them according to this:
I didn’t address your posit because it was absurd on its face. We’re talking about the future and what comes next. American capitalism in 2023 is not the end-all be-all of human advancement and it’s unfathomably arrogant and silly to assume so.
That's a pretty weak argument. You could make similar arguments for anything on earth if you wanted to confiscate property, wealth, etc. In other words, no property rights, no rights to income you earned, no rights to health care beyond what society grants you, no rights to anything beyond what society is willing to grant you. It's just a dictatorship of the bureaucracy running the governmental systems in place to do all of those things.
Well, the Pope is a progressive cuck, so I wouldn't expect much from him. Does make me curious though - does the Vatican have any control over how every Catholic school in the world operates or is handled locally?
That air raid siren was almost comical. I can see Biden later on talking about how brave he was during his visit.... kinda like Clinton claiming she was under sniper fire when she was visiting Sarajevo back in the day.....
Yes taxes are a basic aspect of society. You don’t a have right to not pay your taxes. Gifts are taxed now, as I pointed out. I’m just suggesting raising the rate.
Pope Francis is a huge part of the problem..... he's a woke SJW in religious garb. He's a globalist who encouraged church lockdowns during Covid, encouraged Catholics to get jabbed with abortion-tainted vaccines, who's more concerned about climate change than he is about upholding traditional teachings on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.
I can assure you that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict wouldn't have stood for this.
The local bishop generally has control over the Catholic schools in his diocese. It gets a little murky when the school is operated and administered by a religious order, in which case the head of the order has ultimate authority. Generally speaking, most Catholic grade schools and high schools are run by the local diocese, whereas the great majority of Catholic colleges and universities are run by a particular religious order.
No, you suggested more than that. You suggested that society is responsible for a person's earnings so they have a right to that money. That argument could be used to strip all rights away from people under the guise that everything you have accomplished and own is because society allowed you to do it. This would lead to the idea that people don't have rights to anything they earn or purchase.
They have a right to tax that money. Which is exactly what’s already happening, as I pointed out. I’m just suggesting raising the rate. You can’t give someone your entire net worth without it being taxed.
You can currently do that as long as it’s below a certain threshold. My mom passed her entire net worth on to me.
I completely understand the America haters on the left. They’ve hated the country since the Bolsheviks took power in Russia.
Who on the right would you say is anti-American? Corporations? RINOs?
Last edited:
I assume that because I know of no war on this scale that went to plan. Neither do you. It takes unimaginable hubris to think otherwise.
Exactly, it has to be under a certain amount. Not insane, generational wealth. The conversation was about inherited wealth, not working class people.
No difference philosophically. You either believe a person has the right to decide who gets his/her wealth or you don’t. A right isn’t contingent on how much money we are talking about.
In recent years the term hermaphrodite applied to humans has fallen out of favor since there have been no identified cases of a human reproducing as both male and female,[10] with some biologists saying hermaphroditism does not occur in humans.[11][12] Intersex activists have preferred the word intersex, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be stigmatizing,[13][14][15][16] as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic."[17]
There are no hermaphroditic species among mammals[18][19] or birds.[20][21] According to David B. Rivers there is controversy around hermaphroditism in insects with some experts believing it does not occur.[22] Hermaphroditism is said to occur in one or two insect species.[23]
I’m on record with my prediction that Ukraine will not escalate into nuclear WWIII. You can go on record as well with whatever prediction you want, as long as you’ll be here to eat your crow when it’s all said and done.
That’s what I’m saying, it obviously isn’t a right. You’re taxed now. Duh.
By now you've probably looked it up, but we've sent them grain before. Yet another perk for being older. I know more about stuff than you do.
Secession would not occur without a breaking of militaries. There is no world in which the USA splits into two countries with one single military.
Lol. “Let’s play Russian roulette and if nobody gets killed you have to say it wasn’t stupid after all!”
By all means go on record about nukes. If they go off I’m sure you’ll be red faced.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Why would they fight each other if there was a peaceful seperation?
Umm what? We also sent them billions in military assets during WWII. How is that relevant to the Ukraine war sanctions we’re discussing?
Crappy. Exactly what you’d expect from some of the poorest areas of our country.
Liberalism is evil. Coming to us as soon as they can figure out a way.
There won’t be a peaceful separation. As I already said, it’s logistically impossible. The South wanted a peaceful separation the first time too. Didn’t happen.
Similar threads
