On one hand, they claim wealth won't bring happiness, on the other, they scream at the top of their lungs for wealth redistribution. On one hand, they say money isn't everything, on the other, they define "underprivileged group" on strict monetary terms, ignoring media bias, the absolute numerical superiority of those "underprivileged" and above all logicality. Suffice to say, give me a coherent liberal, I can give you a circle square in a 2D plane.
Hi, I'm The Real American Thinker, but my friends call me TRAT. I'll be having that circle square in a 2-D plane now.
Wait a minute, isnt it conservatives that say money wont make you happy? And shouldnt you be more ashamed of your thought processes than you are right now?
Yea I know you, you are that conservative that got converted into a socialist. - - - Updated - - - Not a conservative. Just a liberal-bashing freedom-lover.
Marxism is the most materialistic ideology in existence. It dwindles our existence down to mere dollar signs.
Yes you may be a liberal bashing freedom lover or whatever term you wish to make up about yourself but no one else is interested and the premise of your thread is wrong since it is in fact conservatives who say that money isnt everything. It makes sense as thats why they are happy while knowing squalor exists in their country. This is seen across the world and throughout history. To them the perils of taxation, wealth redistribution and government have always been far worse than lifting people out of squalor. Its time you came clean and admitted the truth. You do want to heard dont you? Isnt that why youve made this thread?
That's definitely not my view. I think anyone who makes money and work his/her butts off to make money yet adopt a rather nihilistic stance on the fiscal aspect of his/her life is a hypocrite. Um... I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point here but the reason I made this thread is to point out the obvious contradiction in liberals' beliefs. - - - Updated - - - No, I present hard-hitting, solid arguments everyday.
Is true, liberals' are really the materialists. Conservatives believe people should live and let live, but it's liberals who believe that happiness is determined by how much your employer pays you to flip burgers.
On one hand, retardlicans say that airport security personnel and law enforcement should profile and pull aside certain people for extra screening, on the other, they cry crocodile tears when they find their political action groups being pulled aside for extra screening from the IRS On one hand, retardlicans say they want a smaller less intrusive government, on the other, they demand that government tell women what they can and cant do with their bodies, demand that government involve itself in the private lives/bedrooms of citizens, and demand that government enact discriminatory laws against minorities. On one hand, retardlicans make fun of Obama when he uses a teleprompter, on the other, they seem content with the fact that Reagan, Palin, George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, Bachmann, Rick Perry, and all other retardlicans continue to use/have been using teleprompters for more than 6+ decades. Retardlicans being retarded, as usual.
People need to learn that stuff they can't control is all the same. A restriction on your liberty is your inability to conjure a banana smoothie right now. From my perspective that's no worse than the government making it so that I can't afford smoothies - neither restriction I can change. Why does it matter if a human does it rather than nature? Politics is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) except as it relates back to personal ethics.
Im just showing why it makes sense for conservatives to hold that money isnt everything. We libs are a practical people, and we need our welfare cheques for our drug addictions etc etc. You cons being a clean living, spiritual breed, right with god, independent etc etc can easily consider that money isnt everything .... there are more important things like family, the constitution, duty, FREEDOM ETC ETC. Correct?
Capital is of marginal utility when it comes to ones happiness. A person who is poor in terms of their financial assets, education, marketable skill-sets, social networks, or prestige stands to benefit from and can realistically be expected to derive more happiness from getting another 10,000 dollars, four more years of schooling, a few months of vocational training, a new good friend, or award of symbolic importance that elevates their social status in the eyes of others relative to one who gets those things but already has substantial financial assets, extensive tertiary education, coveted occupational abilities, a wide net of contacts and friends, and local fame. The ingredients of power are many and varied. Where a lot of folks go wrong is in using "wealth" as a blanket term for covering everything that conveys affluence and success to a person, and in denying that resources have an important role to play in making folks more or less likely relative to others to have the kinds of opportunities and experiences in life that make happiness more easy to find and hang onto. Money is certainly important but it is not everything. Money is merely a means to an end having no intrinsic value whatsoever. Its distribution actually is important up to a point but I reckon its impact in conveying to folks unearned privileges and disadvantages diminishes the closer one gets to a completely equal allocation. It doesn't make sense to me for the state to idealistically go all the way; well before then I think a class hierarchy indifferent to money would develop. That is not to say greater economic equality would not help make most people happier in the long run - just that it will only work in moderation and if done in concert with a multitude of other public policies affecting how capital gets manipulated.
Really, that is what "liberals" (and others within the middle class) are really communicating when they complaining? I think you are mistaken.
