Are Liberal Politics Anti-Male?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serenity

Moderator
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
5,086
Reaction score
4,941
Age
33
Location
Eye of the storm
In a liberal society women dont need to make an allegiance to the best man available in order to maximize her life because she always has the option of government handouts.
I don't know where you live where women receive such fantastic welfare, but where I'm from it's certainly not that attractive. Unless of course their dream life is a tiny apartment, living frugally, never going on vacation, very rarely being able to afford any luxuries and enjoy being looked down upon by society.

I'm not against supporting the weaker, as long as the amount they receive is low enough to incentivize working.

I'm also not a fan at all of women being motivated to find a man for the sake of their own financial gain. That would be fvcking horrible, it would be even harder to distinguish who's into you just for the money. Any woman I'm with should be working and contribute her fair share, not be some lazy fake ho who's only interest in me is my bank account.

Why so many men on this site is into golddiggers is beyond me. It's such a bad fvcking idea to have a woman's attraction based on your money.
 

Who Dares Win

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
7,518
Reaction score
5,897
It needed 3000 thousand years for western civilization to finally understand that the most wealth and success is reached by limiting government aggression against civil and economic rights of the individual.

We reached the best point in the early 20th century where constitutions and laws were made to facilitate and secure free relationships and trades among free individuals then someone like a snake started telling people that they are oppressed, that they deserve more by providing less and a snowball effect arised till the current state of things.

We have brilliant professionals punished with taxes and thwarted in their everyday life (the part that benefits society included) while a majority of suckers and parasytes are supported for no other reason than breathing.

What people doesnt understand is that the more you punish something the less of it exists while the more you reward something and the more of that will grow...now see it yourself who gets rewarded and who gets punished in our system and see your destination track.

We have plenty of european countries mostly in western Europe where a minority of over taxed and persecuted producers are providing for the majority of the population yet many are surprised while there is no one to take their place once they slowly retire or move abroad.
 

mrgoodstuff

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
17,885
Reaction score
12,121
Location
DFW, TX
I don't know where you live where women receive such fantastic welfare, but where I'm from it's certainly not that attractive. Unless of course their dream life is a tiny apartment, living frugally, never going on vacation, very rarely being able to afford any luxuries and enjoy being looked down upon by society.

I'm not against supporting the weaker, as long as the amount they receive is low enough to incentivize working.

I'm also not a fan at all of women being motivated to find a man for the sake of their own financial gain. That would be fvcking horrible, it would be even harder to distinguish who's into you just for the money. Any woman I'm with should be working and contribute her fair share, not be some lazy fake ho who's only interest in me is my bank account.

Why so many men on this site is into golddiggers is beyond me. It's such a bad fvcking idea to have a woman's attraction based on your money.
Its TOXIC. UNHEALTHY and it creates an unhealthy view and relationship with women in general
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
It needed 3000 thousand years for western civilization to finally understand that the most wealth and success is reached by limiting government aggression against civil and economic rights of the individual.

We reached the best point in the early 20th century where constitutions and laws were made to facilitate and secure free relationships and trades among free individuals then someone like a snake started telling people that they are oppressed, that they deserve more by providing less and a snowball effect arised till the current state of things.

We have brilliant professionals punished with taxes and thwarted in their everyday life (the part that benefits society included) while a majority of suckers and parasytes are supported for no other reason than breathing.

What people doesnt understand is that the more you punish something the less of it exists while the more you reward something and the more of that will grow...now see it yourself who gets rewarded and who gets punished in our system and see your destination track.

We have plenty of european countries mostly in western Europe where a minority of over taxed and persecuted producers are providing for the majority of the population yet many are surprised while there is no one to take their place once they slowly retire or move abroad.
Fvck knows why I even bother making a post as I can't be bothered to care anymore, but I can't resist. I regret making this post because I don't want to argue, but now I don't want to delete my effort.

Private oligarchy that takes control of government is typically the reason why governments are used aggressively against the rest of the citizens. Concentration of economic power leads to concentration of political power, and vice versa. That's what history has been, not a history of large masses of people democratically deciding to oppress poor little "producers". "Government" is not a monolithic alien.

The share of gdp growth that goes to the lower parts of society has flatlined or been cut back in the recent several decades, not increased. We are seeing wealth inequality get back to the 19th century and before, and it's not because of migration.

The reason why "producers" ie workers are taxed more is to shift taxes off property and finance (especially in particularly corrupt countries like Argentina where the oligarchs simply steal those taxes through financial schemes involving things like debt payments), which have always been the way to get wealthy since ancient history (aside from crime), and on to work and consumption. You can have a country with everyone working. You can't have a country with everyone living off of capital gains (including interest). No idea where you are getting the idea from that most of the population is living off of welfare handouts or whatever.

History and contemporary reality is exactly the opposite of right-libertarian descriptions, which is of course precisely the intention of its ideologues as that portrayal is necessary for their deductive logic to work which in turn makes their economic theory "work". The start of the policies and institutions that gave rise to western civilization was in the Near East, and was with a public system based in the palaces and temples, not privatization and "spontaneous order" from atomistic barter.

If people knew that what they preach is simply the same austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation of Europe's feudal ages or 19th century but under rebranded slogans and fake logics, they'd be even less popular than already. Mises, Hayek and Friedman are just a trio of con artists peddling the same things that Rome's oligarchy did 2000 years ago, along with hacks like Carl Menger and his fake economic history. We actually got a recent example of their intentions in Europe itself when they sent their economic pupils to the dissolved Soviet Union as "advisors" to help create and justify the Yeltsin kleptocracy there, as elsewhere like the Pinochet dictatorship. The goal is the same as with every other aristocracy in history: privatize banking, infrastructure and real estate to themselves, make themselves tax exempt, and suck out the rest of the population.

But the most tragic thing is that the so-called "left" parties today are just scams. They are not left wing on economic policy at all. It's just a theater. Taxes on work and consumption and policies adopted from the right wing of austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation are not left wing economic policies. They don't even talk about how banks really work, or the difference between cost and price and what economic rent is, that people like Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, Simon Patten etc. were writing about centuries ago. But nothing is better for the right than having a weak, corrupt, incompetent left. But that is what "representative democracy" is, a corruption which inevitably is corrupt.

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least, neglect persons of poor or mean conditions... is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." - Adam Smith. Although not the most informative citation as it contains no mention of economic policy, it's a nice note to end this wasted post on.
 
Last edited:

thinker

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
295
Reaction score
483
Age
51
@Bible_Belt I am originally from Cuba, like most liberals that I have encountered you are a true intellectual, in other words someone who's level of education far exceeds his or her level of intelligence. In Cuba we tried all of your liberal ideas and as in every single place where your great ideas have been tried it has been a catastrophic disaster. Guess where you can stick those great ideas. As far as hating women I love women in the only true way a man can truly love them, I love them for what and who they are and not for who or what I would like them to be. I have always been a Chad lite and thanks to my sexist latin machismo have done way better than the glory whole smiling mangina neck beards of the liberal world. @Spaz and @Epic Days I have to respectfully disagree on government healthcare. In my personal experience it is just another disaster. There are private solutions to this problem, the only thing government can do is make it so pill companies can't sell pills for hundreds of dollars here in the use while they give those same pills away for free in third world countries. Last but not least yes liberal anything is anti man, if for no other reason than they are always supposedly trying to help the weak versus the strong and men are by default always the stronger gender.
 

Epic Days

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,877
Reaction score
1,644
Age
40
@Spaz and @Epic Days I have to respectfully disagree on government healthcare.
I see all your points. And yes there is a decrease in the quality of healthcare.
America is all about pills. My doctor once told me that mothers would bring their kids in for the sniffles and colds, sore throat, etc.

He knew the correct action was to do nothing and let the child build immunities. But those mothers would never come back and go to a different doctor. Then of course, those bodies when antibiotics are administered, would build up immunities to actually prevent those antibiotics from ever working again.

Drug companies are not designing new antibiotics. There’s no money in it.

So as a pill popping nation, yes, go socialized medicine. This will never happen because insurance companies will go under and drug companies will not thrive.

Most any doctor can set a bone. It’s the surgeries that require skill.
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,433
Reaction score
6,929
@Bible_Belt I am originally from Cuba, like most liberals that I have encountered you are a true intellectual, in other words someone who's level of education far exceeds his or her level of intelligence. In Cuba we tried all of your liberal ideas and as in every single place where your great ideas have been tried it has been a catastrophic disaster. Guess where you can stick those great ideas. As far as hating women I love women in the only true way a man can truly love them, I love them for what and who they are and not for who or what I would like them to be. I have always been a Chad lite and thanks to my sexist latin machismo have done way better than the glory whole smiling mangina neck beards of the liberal world. @Spaz and @Epic Days I have to respectfully disagree on government healthcare. In my personal experience it is just another disaster. There are private solutions to this problem, the only thing government can do is make it so pill companies can't sell pills for hundreds of dollars here in the use while they give those same pills away for free in third world countries. Last but not least yes liberal anything is anti man, if for no other reason than they are always supposedly trying to help the weak versus the strong and men are by default always the stronger gender.
Healthcare should be a 3 pronged approach.

The 1st approach is fully federal government owned, offering free meds, consultation, stay and also surgery to the general public.

The 2nd is semi-govt, funded by states/regional govt, offering the same as above but run as a private enterprise, fuelled by meeting KPI's set by independent oversight boards.

The 3rd is fully privatised top of the line healthcare, with every citizen of a country endowed with compulsory healthcare insurance set up and supported by the federal government (limited to a set amount) or by using own funds/private insurance coverage.

Of course everyone is also encouraged to buy additional health insurance from competing insurers BUT subsidised by the federal govt, perhaps using the ratio of 60:40.

So the choice of healthcare will be 3 for the general public, with 3 types of hospitals vying or competing for patients in order to remain viable.

Once there's competition, service level will increase in tandem.
 

Jager

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
239
Reaction score
277
Age
33

zekko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
16,052
Reaction score
8,885
There's a reason that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. They now have money and don't need handouts.
I've mentioned this before, but there's an old saying that seems to apply here:

If you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart.
If you're not conservative when you're older, you have no brain.
 
Last edited:
U

user43770

Guest
Healthcare should be a 3 pronged approach.

The 1st approach is fully federal government owned, offering free meds, consultation, stay and also surgery to the general public.

The 2nd is semi-govt, funded by states/regional govt, offering the same as above but run as a private enterprise, fuelled by meeting KPI's set by independent oversight boards.

The 3rd is fully privatised top of the line healthcare, with every citizen of a country endowed with compulsory healthcare insurance set up and supported by the federal government (limited to a set amount) or by using own funds/private insurance coverage.

Of course everyone is also encouraged to buy additional health insurance from competing insurers BUT subsidised by the federal govt, perhaps using the ratio of 60:40.

So the choice of healthcare will be 3 for the general public, with 3 types of hospitals vying or competing for patients in order to remain viable.

Once there's competition, service level will increase in tandem.
How does this help anyone when inflation is constantly increasing due to socialist policies?

The bottom obviously abuse the system, as is always the course, which puts more pressure on everyone. From the county level, to the state, to the federal.

Just look at public transportation. It's abused by the lower class to a point where they're the only ones that use it. It becomes no longer safe nor efficient to use.
 
U

user43770

Guest
Just look at public education, which hardly teaches history these days.

Oh, they still teach history, but it's a watered down version of what we learned, which was already watered down from what the boomers learned.
 
U

user43770

Guest
I see all your points. And yes there is a decrease in the quality of healthcare.
America is all about pills. My doctor once told me that mothers would bring their kids in for the sniffles and colds, sore throat, etc.

He knew the correct action was to do nothing and let the child build immunities. But those mothers would never come back and go to a different doctor. Then of course, those bodies when antibiotics are administered, would build up immunities to actually prevent those antibiotics from ever working again.

Drug companies are not designing new antibiotics. There’s no money in it.

So as a pill popping nation, yes, go socialized medicine. This will never happen because insurance companies will go under and drug companies will not thrive.

Most any doctor can set a bone. It’s the surgeries that require skill.
Antibiotics are good. No debate there.

Go socialized medicine? You mean like the NHS? Or were you referring to another country that saw temporary success with nationalized healthcare, based on their ability to not pay for national defense, which they put on American taxpayers?
 
U

user43770

Guest
If the US hadn't been playing world ruler for so long, countries like England and Sweden would be singing a different tune when it came to healthcare
 
U

user43770

Guest
England and Sweden have been using funds that would typically be used for self-defense, on things like healthcare and the integration of immigrants.

Now that Trump is in office, based on the stances he's taken, they feel like they don't have enough money.

Gravey train is over.
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,433
Reaction score
6,929
How does this help anyone when inflation is constantly increasing due to socialist policies?

The bottom obviously abuse the system, as is always the course, which puts more pressure on everyone. From the county level, to the state, to the federal.

Just look at public transportation. It's abused by the lower class to a point where they're the only ones that use it. It becomes no longer safe nor efficient to use.
Most Asian countries spend 5% of their GDP on healthcare and only 0.6%-1.5% on defence.

It helps if most countries lower their defence spending and focuses on human development.

It helps to move forward, rather then destroying.

Governments could then scrap their social security, which actually breeds more bottom feeders - a bane to their own society and only implement universal healthcare since its extremely expensive for normal citizens to afford specialist treatments such as cancer, kidney transplants and others.

On another note, govts should be spending more in research on how to circumvent food shortages (and others) that will come with the coming climate cycle - it will come as it has always been throughout earth's history.

Inflation increases when productivity is low, can an average American factory worker compete with an Asian in terms of productivity?

Prepare urself TyTe, in 10 years time, things in America will not be the same, there will be much hardships, plenty of jobs will be redundant and many here will be jobless.
 
U

user43770

Guest
Most Asian countries spend 5% of their GDP on healthcare and only 0.6%-1.5% on defence.

It helps if most countries lower their defence spending and focuses on human development.

It helps to move forward, rather then destroying.

Governments could then scrap their social security, which actually breeds more bottom feeders - a bane to their own society and only implement universal healthcare since its extremely expensive for normal citizens to afford specialist treatments such as cancer, kidney transplants and others.

On another note, govts should be spending more in research on how to circumvent food shortages (and others) that will come with the coming climate cycle - it will come as it has always been throughout earth's history.

Inflation increases when productivity is low, can an average American factory worker compete with an Asian in terms of productivity?

Prepare urself TyTe, in 10 years time, things in America will not be the same, there will be much hardships, plenty of jobs will be redundant and many here will be jobless.
I honestly don't know how to prepare myself for the upcoming downturn, spaz. I've been thinking about taking some classes in small engine repair, as that will always be useful.

I'm just glad I don't have kids. Society has changed so much since I was a kid. And not in a good way.

I'm prepared for a vast decline in living comfort, as I'm a stoic type that can do without. Most people aren't like me, though.
 
U

user43770

Guest
Most Asian countries spend 5% of their GDP on healthcare and only 0.6%-1.5% on defence.

It helps if most countries lower their defence spending and focuses on human development.

It helps to move forward, rather then destroying.

Governments could then scrap their social security, which actually breeds more bottom feeders - a bane to their own society and only implement universal healthcare since its extremely expensive for normal citizens to afford specialist treatments such as cancer, kidney transplants and others.

On another note, govts should be spending more in research on how to circumvent food shortages (and others) that will come with the coming climate cycle - it will come as it has always been throughout earth's history.

Inflation increases when productivity is low, can an average American factory worker compete with an Asian in terms of productivity?

Prepare urself TyTe, in 10 years time, things in America will not be the same, there will be much hardships, plenty of jobs will be redundant and many here will be jobless.
Trump has done a lot to change the tide - as far as industry goes - but there won't be another Trump in our lifetime.

The have-nots have outnumbered the producers. And it's the fault of Democrats and Republicans alike.

I reckon there will never be another "conservative" president, much less one like Trump. Love that guy
 

Spaz

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
8,433
Reaction score
6,929
I honestly don't know how to prepare myself for the upcoming downturn, spaz. I've been thinking about taking some classes in small engine repair, as that will always be useful.

I'm just glad I don't have kids. Society has changed so much since I was a kid. And not in a good way.

I'm prepared for a vast decline in living comfort, as I'm a stoic type that can do without. Most people aren't like me, though.
Why do you think I engage in debates with you?

I don't give guys tasks they can't do.

Surpass ur limits.
 
U

user43770

Guest
Why do you think I engage in debates with you?

I don't give guys tasks they can't do.

Surpass ur limits.
I'm always surpassing my limits. Not because I want to; because I have no choice in it.

I'm not happy about it. I'd like to sit around and drink beer all day. My disposition won't allow it.

"…if the lives of men were relieved of all need, hardship and adversity; if everything they took in hand were successful, they would be so swollen with arrogance that, though they might not burst, they would present the spectacle of unbridled folly—nay, they would go mad. And I may say, further, that a certain amount of care or pain or trouble is necessary for every man at all times. A ship without ballast is unstable and will not go straight."

- Arthur Schopenhauer
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
England and Sweden have been using funds that would typically be used for self-defense, on things like healthcare and the integration of immigrants.

Now that Trump is in office, based on the stances he's taken, they feel like they don't have enough money.

Gravey train is over.
How does this help anyone when inflation is constantly increasing due to socialist policies?

The bottom obviously abuse the system, as is always the course, which puts more pressure on everyone. From the county level, to the state, to the federal.

Just look at public transportation. It's abused by the lower class to a point where they're the only ones that use it. It becomes no longer safe nor efficient to use.
Antibiotics are good. No debate there.

Go socialized medicine? You mean like the NHS? Or were you referring to another country that saw temporary success with nationalized healthcare, based on their ability to not pay for national defense, which they put on American taxpayers?
Hahahaha... man you americans are so fvcking stupid :rofl::rofl::rofl: I can't do anything but laugh at you anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top