>>6031407

TY Baker!!!

>>6031147 (lb)

In order for capitalism to work, there has to be someone making more money than someone else based on the sense that they took the risk for a venture to succeed, while employing people for a fraction of the cost of the service provided. The problem is, admitting this gets you labeled a socialist. Taking risks and accepting responsibility deserve a higher wage, sure, but who is the judge of what's amicable in that regard?

For the workers, they can take their services elsewhere, but the ebb and flow of labor forces vs management is what got us into debates like NAFTA to begin with. UPS is a prime example. UPS management wanted a way to organize their labor. Laborers wanted more share of the pie for their services. Unions were invited in to create the balance. UPS, to cut cost, forced everyone into part time positions to avoid benefits. Unions fought harder to gain benefits for part timers. UPS, as a company, found themselves in a more difficult position to become profitable, so the standard practice was to fire anyone before they hit their 2nd/3rd month of employment. Unions started drafting people way sooner, and then, cheap labor started flooding the scene. You basically cannot get ad-hoc work on trucking docks anymore (as an individual from a particular background) because that market is over saturated with cheap labor.

Used to be, a 17 or 18 year old guy from shitsville, wherever could show up at the docks, offer labor to help, and the truckers would pay cash money. Now? It's extremely organized by labor groups utilizing the services of millions of "immigrants"; forcing the homegrown to go elsewhere and demand 15 per hour to flip burgers.

Socialism is a failure. Capitalism pits the most competitive at the top no matter how you slice and dice it. Any attempts at an equitable middle ground are just varying degrees of socialism sprinkled into capitalism. This empty suit socialist is not going to solve this debate with empty suit capitalists. Not because they don't care or somewhat understand the issues inherent in both systems, but because the people wanting better wages for the workers absolutely refuse to acknowledge where the real source of the problem lies, while trying to maintain a constituency of actual Americans. You can't have it both fucking ways.

Either stand up for Americans, or get the fuck out of the conversation.

>>6031406

>He's the one who started the 'terrorism' rhetoric that gets so much play these days

Literally false. Carter banned Muslims from Iran based on their ties to Islamic extremism:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

Side note:

Bet you didn't know Reagan banned HIV positive persons from entering the US as part of an effort to reduce potential infection rates in the US.

Also, what in the actual fuck do you think you'd do if you had a gun held to your head? Reagan was in a no-win situation. I think we've learned that most Presidents had no clue what was really going on before they got into office.

>>6031590

>>6032051

>>6031686

>>6031704

> it foreshadows the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ centuries later to atone for the sins of mankind.

Why does God require a sacrifice? Why not introduce Jesus to mankind before the flood?

There's much more to the problem of this whole thing than people realize. Is Abraham's story a story of faith? Obedience? Both? That doesn't even concern a believer seeking understanding, to be honest, because most believers will simply stop with "He trusted God, and that's that!"

Don't EVEN get me started on Job…

My question is, why does God even require a sacrifice before Jesus? Why did it take the entirety of human history up until about 2000 years ago for God to finally be like "OK, awesome; got that out of the way." Why aren't Christians still sacrificing things and stuff to God? Jesus said it himself that he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Why did Christians stop sacrificing, then? Was it because after that point, the priests were no longer in control of people/government in the same way?

None of it adds up. Keep in mind that I'm 100% behind the message of sticking to the texts in red in the bible, and think that if everyone did that, the world would be a much better place. I don't believe it would have required God to sacrifice his own son to save us. If God wanted to save "us", then why not introduce Christ before the "Watchers" stopped "watching" and started "mating"? Why allow Cain and Able? Why couldn't God find Adam and Eve when he was walking through the garden?

If it's allegorical and meant to serve the purpose of teaching us how to live our lives, great. Let's explain it that way the same way oracles and wise men explain Buddah, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, or The Gita. Until someone can answer the reason God required sacrifices to begin with, I'm left with the assumption that it was the priests exacting control over the people in a form of a Theocracy where the priests were simply the leaders; hands down. Lepers weren't allowed in because the priests saw them as unclean. Wouldn't want unclean people touching all that "sacrificed" meat, would you? And speaking of Cain and Able, if someone was sacrificing something to your temple, as a priest, wouldn't you rather have meat than veggies?

There's a reason the people demanded a king, and I think, wholeheartedly, they had enough of being a theocracy. The rest is "history", or at least what they want us to believe. The Council of Nicea decided "what was in, and what was out", and that got further refined by the Catholic Church. What history are we missing out on?