Random Politics & Religion #01

They only have to accommodate up to what they as a college can provide or what makes sense in a college setting and IEPs set out what you specifically are transferring into with the disabilities office. Whether or not they can provide that is totally up to the colleges discretion (As well as interpretation of benefits and other *** that colleges can and do get away with). Granted yea, i just kinda believed my guidance counselor when she handed me a folder and went "Yea, thatll work anywhere"

Redistribution of wealth from the evil oppressor bourgeois capitalist to the benign oppressed proletariat, by force if need be, is one of the core beliefs of the progressive ideology. Hell their entire ideology revolves around the belief that those who privately own the means of production (aka property) are oppressing and stealing from those who labor for them. That the owner, the capitalist, is taking the largest portion of the fruits of the labor (the profit) for themselves and only handing out a smaller portion to the laborer. A progressive believes that social justice must be done, by whatever method, to take those profits from the capitalist and give them to the laborer. They also believe that the social injustice could be prevented if the means of production (aka property) were communally owned by everyone (aka state owned).

It's a Robin Hood syndrome wherein the believer makes themselves into a hero in their own mind as a form of validation.

Anyone who claims to be a progressive yet also claims to not believe the above is a liar. It would the like someone claiming to be a Christian while also claiming to not believe in Jesus. The belief of justified wealth redistribution is a core tenant in the ideology that created communism and socialism.

***.
There are benign capitalist/socialist principles and ideas (and people that believe in them) that don't cross the boundaries into the extremes.
Stating that they don't exist is simple demagoguery.
There is a goddamn middle ground.

So now we have gone from personal wealth acquisition to Saeval's radical definition of progressive wealth redistribution, which has nothing to do with how wealth is acquired. Its easy to get lost in his nonsense manifestos but the two are very different.

I said nothing about extreme's, that is your own mental self defense kicking in and putting up blinders.

You can not be a progressive and not believe in redistribution of wealth. You can argue all day about the degree of the redistribution, some progressives think it should be less while others think all wealth should be redistributed. Doesn't change the fact the both believe in the same core principle.

You people demonstrate this in every thread you participate in. Lots of talk about taxing the "wealthy" at a disproportionately higher rate, and using "common money" (aka the taxes from the wealthy) to fund social programs aimed at the poor.

That is redistribution of wealth. You are taking money from the successful capitalists and then giving it to the proletariat in the form of hand outs and welfare programs. The result is that the wealthy have a net positive contribution to the community owned pool of money while the poor have a net negative contribution that same pool. You might not be throwing the money off the back of a truck into crowds of poor people, but you are taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Now if progressives would at least acknowledge their own ideological beliefs instead of trying to mask them, then we could have a productive conversation about degree's, results and practicality of real world implementations.

So it seems as if we have completely moved off of personal wealth acquisition and instead onto something more to Saevel's liking since he doesn't have to make up claims to further his hatred of progressives.

tl;dr? Or is it the usual round of "progressives be bad" word salad?

Just making sure.. we are on the same page.
So we are going under the assumption that all professionals are not arrogant, would always refer if they didn't have the expertise and would never commit fraud to further their income and/or increase school/business revenue.

I'm just going by the two quotes I quoted. If you want to disprove this theory go ahead. I'm not about to go searching the internet to show you that all the above does occur, and more often than you would think.

So just more conjecture. We already knew that.

Does a post structure exists that you wouldn't complain about?

They ain't?

Don't say why or anything..

I see a lot of complaining about Saevels opinions but nothing refuting them. Could we get a little less character assassination in here?

That is a MASSIVE assumption!

There's no obligation to refute a strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy. You get the Price is Right loser music and that's it.

The inability of the 4 or 5 of you to ever respond or counter his points either logically or factually is even more amusing.

There's mockery. At least you have that. Snarkiness. I guess there's that too. Wit? Not really.

"C'mon guys let's laugh at Saev. Guys? Help me out here."

There's never a contest though.

He can't stay on topic so there is nothing to refute, we were talking about personal wealth acquisition, nobody is interested in the completely different topic of wealth redistribution. So far he has yet to post about the actual topic that he started last night.

I was unaware "random"P&R had a topic..

Now you are.

Yeah, it's your choice to not be mentally unequipped to match Saev. Sure it is, Flop.

But an obligation exists to apparently throw out as many character assassination attempts as possible over it?

Damn this lack of edit crap