- 21 hours ago
- 2 days ago
I came across this picture and I love it.
The only way for those people on the right to advance in life is through their own effort, and conservative economic policies create the optimal environment for that to happen. Liberals must not care about people considering they prefer a restricted economy and an excessive tax burden.
You hear that, folks? Starving homeless kids just need to let themselves be exploited in sweatshops!
Bootstraps and such!
- JaneEMPATHY?! EMPATHY?! THATS FOR FOETUSES -Ash
Bootstraps over dependency, economics over brainless liberal good intentions. If you care about the whole of society, voting republican is necessary.
Empty rhetoric, disregard for human life.
But vote republic, right folks?
I wish all of them were as transparent as this clown.
What sort of regard for human life ought I have? What more have you done to alleviate poverty? There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering. The question is what is good for all of society. And the answer to that question is conservatism.
“There will always exist a certain amount of poverty and suffering.”
Therein lies your problem. You think any amount of suffering, even the massive problems of poverty, is justifiable for the good of society. We don’t. We don’t think a society is good if millions of people are starving or living on the streets. A society is not a successful one if hundreds of thousands of people are dying every day from poverty-related ills. You may think those deaths are inconsequential, but we don’t.
Poverty is an inherent part of human society. You can’t get rid of it. There are about 600,000 homeless people in the US at any given time. Out of 300 million people, that’s virtually nothing. If you want poverty to decline, support conservative pro-growth economic policies.
Conservatives like you think 600,00 homeless people (that you know of - the count is most likely higher, since it can be difficult to count people with no home address) are virtually nothing, and we’re supposed to trust you? No. Poverty is a part of our current society, but it doesn’t always have to be. And I’d much rather be a ~bleeding heart liberal~ than someone who can look at 600,000 homeless people and say they don’t matter.
You shouldn’t operate by emotion. You should think rationally. What’s best for the majority is what is reasonable and practical. Policy making inherently involves trade-offs. Clearly providing enough funds to end poverty altogether would require enough taxation to end economic prosperity altogether, which in turn creates more poverty. Being a bleeding heart liberal seems to mean in this context that public policies should be evaluated by their ability to do the impossible. That isn’t rational analysis. And it leads to the advocacy of policies that are costly, anti-growth, and anti-prosperity, which yields even greater suffering and poverty. I don’t know how anybody could live in reality and think like that.
Hang on, I’m still laughing, sorry to jump in here but wow.
Policies that are the best for the majority… well, 16% of the country is living in poverty. And 20% of children are living in poverty. That’s a huge ass chunk of people.
You know what is good for the majority number of people? Education, health care and food. (And don’t spout that conservative nonsense about free health care being impossible to maintain, because New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland ALL have free, universal healthcare and some have since the 60’s and they are doing just fine).
You know what helps a majority of Americans? Not leaving other Americans to suffer and starve. It doesn’t hurt the economy to feed children. It doesn’t hurt the economy to take care of your own fucking citizens. You keep them well fed, educated and healthy and they’ll be more productive and happier. This isn’t even shocking news, it’s been fact for centuries.
Jesus, how does anyone live to be as soulless as you?
There’s no reason why health care can’t be allocated by markets. Markets are the most efficient way to allocate goods and services, this has been proven time and again. There does need to be some sort of social safety net, and there is. Still, do you think that our society should strive for more hand outs, or more prosperity? Of course the best way to create an environment where society can improve and opportunity can be created for people is to promote economic growth.
The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
This is beautiful. And illustrates how the right-wing thinks: Fuck you, got mine.
It’s hard to pull yourself up when you’re continuously slapped down. Just sayin’.
I was waiting for this conservative douchecanoe to say “Hail Hydra.” What’s murdering a few million people if I benefit from it?
Also as always dudes assume by their dudeness that they are by default operating “rationally” and anyone who disagrees with them is “emotional” (i.e. “a woman”). Nevermind that he’s operating from his own smug, throbbing sense of personal superiority and arrogance (gasp! emotions!) rather than logic (a society benefits most when all members are guaranteed to have their basic needs met).
So fucking ridiculous it sounds like a parody…
- 2 days ago
"fight like a girl" is meant to imply weakness, but some girls don’t play nice.
♥ available for a limited time only ♥
(via mononucleosister)Source: sugarbone
- 4 days ago
I actually believe artists and scientists think very similarly. Complex, abstract thought? They both have that down. It’s all about where that thinking takes you after that.
Words cannot describe how much I love this post.
I hate that the two are talked about as oppositional things. Science and art are bros, to the point where the debate still rages about which preceded the other. We don’t fight, we’re not enemies, we need each other. Ask an artist what they focus on, anatomy, light, color, depth. Do you know what that really is? Biology, theories of visual perception, and physics. The number of artistic movements that were literally started because of a new scientific discovery is staggering. Hell, to gain legitimacy, early photographers did their utmost to appear to be artists, because they knew otherwise, photography would just be viewed as an illegitimate gimmick.
I cannot tell you how much I despise this idea that science and art are at oppositional ends of the spectrum. You can not have art without the tools made by science (stylus, paper, ink, paint, video, anything), and you cannot have science without the explanations granted by art (written word, illustrations, diagrams, charts, anatomical models, medical comics). I literally once had someone tell me a video game could never be art because it involved science…well guess what, so did DaVinci’s works, so did the Impressionists, so did every artist ever. Even when you break it down to pure, raw abstraction, composition is simply math.
Science is art, art is science. Stop acting like one is pure intellect and the other pure emotion. Its an absurd binary, and frankly, it does not really exist.
- 4 days ago
7 Articles about Peeps just in time for Easter:
- 4 days ago
- 4 days ago
have you ever met a person that you’re forced to mantain a level of cold civility towards but if you could you would totally punch them as hard as you could but you can’t so every second you’re forced to be around them you’re thinking of smashing their face in just so they’ll shut up
(via cutemetalhead)Source: oldwomanjosie