The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[henry quirk]

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole. If this is NOT correct, then correct it.

It's not correct. The correction is in previous posts. You still misuse forfeit.


How can I be using 'forfeit' wrong?

Consult a dictionary: you'll see the error.

[simplicity]

But he's right, it was the left that fought for universal voting rights which is what makes representative democracy actually representative. You said that's the "best system BY FAR" and you ahve told uis what an a-political moderate you are, so you can give the left this win if you are honest.

I am not knowledgeable about voting rights so you may be correct. But it's sort of like like the sadistic rapist/murderer that gives your family a glasses of water before he [fill in the blank].

I know that many leftist have do have good intentions initially [and these results in good deeds], but the entire project quickly morphs into something truly evil once these same folks realize that the Rx for compliance to the doctrine is increasingly dire levels of coercion which ALWAYS leads to the final solution [mass genocide].

For many, many reasons. It just doesn't work.

[simplicity]

It is far more complicated than that.
Inflation can happen regardless of any creation of money.

Yes, you can have inflation due to minor economic disturbances, but 99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing. This is why the folks that control the money, control the country.

[mickthinks]

99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing.

It's my experience that "99%" is one of the most common figures to be chosen by those who make their statistics up.

Do you have any reliable studies to cite in support of this claim? I hope so, because fake economics destroys EVERYTHING it touches.

[FlashDangerpants]

But he's right, it was the left that fought for universal voting rights which is what makes representative democracy actually representative. You said that's the "best system BY FAR" and you ahve told uis what an a-political moderate you are, so you can give the left this win if you are honest.

I am not knowledgeable about voting rights so you may be correct. But it's sort of like like the sadistic rapist/murderer that gives your family a glasses of water before he [fill in the blank].

You should really know the basic history of the subject matter when you are making such bold absolutist claims as those you are making here.

I know that many leftist have do have good intentions initially [and these results in good deeds], but the entire project quickly morphs into something truly evil once these same folks realize that the Rx for compliance to the doctrine is increasingly dire levels of coercion which ALWAYS leads to the final solution [mass genocide].

For many, many reasons. It just doesn't work.

Always? Do you have the information necessary to back that claim up? It seems like silly hyperbole thus far.

[Sculptor]

It is far more complicated than that.
Inflation can happen regardless of any creation of money.

Yes, you can have inflation due to minor economic disturbances, but 99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing. This is why the folks that control the money, control the country.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
If you want me to take that comment seriously you will need to cite that figure.

It is perfectly possible to create money without sustaining any inflationary effects. It depends on what and how that money is introduced into the economy.

Inflation is also the result of; capricious popularity in limited resources, or standard resources reaching limits on supply for reasons that are not related in any sense to the money supply.
Rising wages; regulations of a certain type; or devaluation can all push inflation.

Following the crash of 2008/9 the Uk government created £425,000,000,000 with no significant infaltionary effects.

Like I said - it is more complicated that you know.

[Age]

This is the framework...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Your framework up-thread FAILS from START to FINISH.

Please explain how it fails from start to finish.

By the fact that you:
1. Could NOT legitimately provide an individual human being NOR body who could arbitrate over this.
2. Because you CONTRADICT your OWN made up framework through and by of your own continual behaviors.
3. Because EVERY one has their OWN definition of 'just cause'.
4. Because one can NEVER fully KNOW whether another is doing something knowingly nor willingly.
5.Because NO one ACTUALLY "owns" "property".
6. And, because of the ABSURD notion that a human being has the "right" to forfeit or deprive another human being of life, liberty, or "property" just because they think that they have a "right" to.
7. If this framework was followed or adhered to, then you ALL, in the days when this is being written, would have already been forfeited in part or in whole of your own life, liberty, AND "property".

Now, if you would like to address each and every one of these points I raised here, then please feel FREE to.

But if you do not, then we understand that you are not able to.

[Age]

maybe I came in for a VERY LEGITIMATE reason.

Can you give me a legit reason why you would enter my home at 3am without permission?

Yes.

There could be thousands of legitimate reasons.

But according to you, there is absolutely NONE, correct?

[Age]

I do NOT class ANY thing as "my own" for a "break in" to occur.

Is there anything that is yours?

Are you your own?

When, and if, you EVER learn and understand what the 'you' ACTUALLY IS, then you will SEE the uselessness, meaningless and self-contradictory wrongness of this clarifying question here.

Who and/or what is the 'you', to you, and HOW could a 'you' own, or possess, its own 'self'? In other words, how could 'you' own 'you' when 'you' ARE 'you'.

By the way, there is only one thing that is mine, and that is Life, Itself. This is My Life. But NO one "breaks in" to My Life nor even could break into My Life. Absolutely EVERY one is 'Welcome (in) to My Life'. Now there is a title for a book.

[mickthinks]

I am not knowledgeable about voting rights ...

lol
So do you know anything about democracy?

[Age]

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole. If this is NOT correct, then correct it.

It's not correct. The correction is in previous posts.

Now, here is the PRIME EXAMPLE of what "lacewing" was so CORRECTLY picking you up on, and I was HIGHLIGHTING also. That is; you do NOT provide what you say you have, but continue to CLAIM you have, and then just expect "others" to go looking for 'it'. The issue, however, is there is NO 'it'.

UNTIL you PROVIDE the "correction", for us to SEE, OR PROVIDE WHERE the EXACT WORDS ARE, which you CLAIM is "the correction", then there exists NO correction to and for the readers. For all we KNOW "the correction" could all just be in your own IMAGINATION.

And, if you are too "gutless" to correct the above NOW, then this is just MORE PROOF of how DISTORTED and ILLOGICAL your framework REALLY IS.

You still misuse forfeit.

How can I be using 'forfeit' wrong?

Consult a dictionary: you'll see the error.

Done this. There is NO error. End of story.

And you have PROVED that there is NO error by your complete and utter LACK OF ABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM that I, laughingly, misuse the word 'forfeit'.

I will suggest, ONCE AGAIN, if 'you', human beings, want to make a CLAIM, then it would be far better, for 'you', if you were able to back up and support your CLAIM BEFORE you make the ACTUAL CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

[Age]

But he's right, it was the left that fought for universal voting rights which is what makes representative democracy actually representative. You said that's the "best system BY FAR" and you ahve told uis what an a-political moderate you are, so you can give the left this win if you are honest.

I am not knowledgeable about voting rights so you may be correct. But it's sort of like like the sadistic rapist/murderer that gives your family a glasses of water before he [fill in the blank].

gives them a million dollars each.

That is surely one of the funniest attempts at providing an 'argument', on a philosophy forum.

Are you able to better explain what 'it' is, which you are 'trying to' argue for here?

If yes, then will you?

I know that many leftist have do have good intentions initially [and these results in good deeds], but the entire project quickly morphs into something truly evil once these same folks realize that the Rx for compliance to the doctrine is increasingly dire levels of coercion which ALWAYS leads to the final solution [mass genocide].

For many, many reasons. It just doesn't work.

Look, you can NOT even define the word 'leftist' in a logical way, let alone even 'try to' argue for whatever 'it' is, which you are 'trying to' argue for here.

[Age]

It is far more complicated than that.
Inflation can happen regardless of any creation of money.

Yes, you can have inflation due to minor economic disturbances, but 99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing. This is why the folks that control the money, control the country.

These do NOT logically follow.

But anyway and also, for the past few decades 'you', adult human beings, have just been 'printing more money', or more commonly in the current days of writing this just putting higher numbers on computer screens, but inflation is NOT necessarily occurring AT ALL.

Let us LOOK AT the Facts. 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, just, what is called, "print more money", and EXCESSIVE amounts at that. Unless, of course, there are some of 'you' who actually believe that money is being borrowed from someone or some other country, and if there is ANY one who believes this, then please inform us readers who or what country that is where the rest of 'you' are borrowing ALL of that money from.

We would be very interested in knowing how they ACTUALLY obtained ALL of that money, which they are then able to "lend" to the rest of 'world' and to the rest of 'you'.

[Age]

99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing.

It's my experience that "99%" is one of the most common figures to be chosen by those who make their statistics up.

A GREAT POINT and well observed and recognized.

But there is a GREAT OFFENDER of just making up statistics in this forum, and then proposing those figures as though they are actual real and true, but who does use absolutely ANY figure they wish to besides the commonly used "99%" one.

Do you have any reliable studies to cite in support of this claim?

If that other offender who is known as "veritas aequitas" here, in this forum, was ever asked this question, then if they were Honest then on just about EVERY occasion they would have to answer, 'No'.

I hope so, because fake economics destroys EVERYTHING it touches.

By the way, I wonder when the word 'excessive' was used here if what that was in relation to, EXACTLY, was ever thought about?

Because what I think would be discovered is that the one who wrote that word here would have absolutely NO idea AT ALL.

[Age]

It is far more complicated than that.
Inflation can happen regardless of any creation of money.

Yes, you can have inflation due to minor economic disturbances, but 99% of inflation is due to excessive money printing. This is why the folks that control the money, control the country.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
If you want me to take that comment seriously you will need to cite that figure.

It is perfectly possible to create money without sustaining any inflationary effects. It depends on what and how that money is introduced into the economy.

Inflation is also the result of; capricious popularity in limited resources, or standard resources reaching limits on supply for reasons that are not related in any sense to the money supply.
Rising wages; regulations of a certain type; or devaluation can all push inflation.

Following the crash of 2008/9 the Uk government created £425,000,000,000 with no significant infaltionary effects.

Like I said - it is more complicated that you know.

Obviously, it is true that in some countries, in the past to the days when this is being written, when printing 'excessive' amounts of money inflation rose exponentially and got 'out of control', as it is said. However, human beings learned to control that, and one example is what that government did above, with no significant inflationary effects.

Also, the word 'excessive' provides a clue that it would or did cause inflation. Obviously, if the amount of money being printed is NOT 'excessive', then it does NOT cause inflation, and vice-versa. To use the word 'excessive' means there was or will be an issue or problem, and with money that could involve 'inflation'. So, by just saying and stating the word 'excessive' in relation to 'amounts of money', then it goes without saying 'inflation' is the OBVIOUS result.