-7
1.
Midge 2 year s ago
#5 of course there are separations in cities. that pleaces looks greener than toxic New York.
7
2.
Archilles 2 year s ago
#5 I don’t know… some in the slum got waterfront views 
-1
3.
Shirley 2 year s ago
Archilles,
That's the sewer line
That's the sewer line
-3
4.
Jehiel 2 year s ago
#5 - “inequality” is a bad choice of wording because only Socialists, Communists, and Democrats would expect equality between corporations and people - a better word choice would be “contrast.” Don’t make me educate you any further.
-4
5.
Vonnie 2 year s ago
Jehiel,
Talk to me about Socialism when you quit driving on publicly funded roads; quit calling publicly funded fire departments and law enforcement; quit flying on planes that rely on publicly funded air traffic controllers, and quit depending on a publicly funded military to keep you safe.
Talk to me about Socialism when you quit driving on publicly funded roads; quit calling publicly funded fire departments and law enforcement; quit flying on planes that rely on publicly funded air traffic controllers, and quit depending on a publicly funded military to keep you safe.
5
6.
Nat 2 year s ago
Vonnie, wow. You have NO idea what socialism is about.It may of course also include publicly funded Goods like roads or else. You´re mixin it up w communism and stupidity. Let me educate you: Socialism is a left-wing political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.Social ownership can be public, collective, or cooperative.While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. READING HELPS.
0
7.
Ben 2 year s ago
Nat,
Yes I agree: socialism means public ownership of schools, utilities, law enforcement, defense, postal services, prisons, health care, transportation infrastructure, social services (many of these are listed in the US Constitution - e.g. postal service). Things associated with the public good not being driven solely by profit. I understand that Republicans (such as yourself I assume) think these should all be for profit and that things like equal access should be sacrificed for the gain of the capitalists. But it simply isn't efficient. Take health care: A socialist-based approach halves the cost and measurably increases positive outcomes (e.g. longevity), as shown each and every day by an enormous list of developed countries that have used this approach for decades.
Perhaps you are being a bit pedantic? Socialism isn't just a single form of government (though there have been attempts at such that generally don't work well). Rather socialism is an approach to working on a common solutions to broad social needs rather than a focus on profit. The right-wing in the US has painted any such goals (that don't benefit either the rich or the whites) as leading to communism or a socialist government. It's complete BS and fear mongering.
Yes I agree: socialism means public ownership of schools, utilities, law enforcement, defense, postal services, prisons, health care, transportation infrastructure, social services (many of these are listed in the US Constitution - e.g. postal service). Things associated with the public good not being driven solely by profit. I understand that Republicans (such as yourself I assume) think these should all be for profit and that things like equal access should be sacrificed for the gain of the capitalists. But it simply isn't efficient. Take health care: A socialist-based approach halves the cost and measurably increases positive outcomes (e.g. longevity), as shown each and every day by an enormous list of developed countries that have used this approach for decades.
Perhaps you are being a bit pedantic? Socialism isn't just a single form of government (though there have been attempts at such that generally don't work well). Rather socialism is an approach to working on a common solutions to broad social needs rather than a focus on profit. The right-wing in the US has painted any such goals (that don't benefit either the rich or the whites) as leading to communism or a socialist government. It's complete BS and fear mongering.
3
8.
Ned 2 year s ago
Vonnie,
Marxism - aka socialism, communism, social justice, etc. - killed over 100 million of its own citizens in the 20th century. If that's not a high enough body count for you, then you are either ignorant or evil.
Marxism - aka socialism, communism, social justice, etc. - killed over 100 million of its own citizens in the 20th century. If that's not a high enough body count for you, then you are either ignorant or evil.
-1
9.
Ben 2 year s ago
Jehiel,
Tell me you don't know a thing about systemic economic inequality without telling me.
You should of course also know that the US GDP does significantly better under Democrats than Republicans (it's an easy objective fact to look up). One primary reason is the Dems don't focus exclusively on making such inequality worse.
In 1982 when Forbes first published the 400 richest, the richest person was worth around $5billion (in 2022 dollars). Now the richest person is worth $177B. Meanwhile, wages have been fairly flat.
Republicans think this is a good thing. History shows in general that it marks the end of nation's health.
Tell me you don't know a thing about systemic economic inequality without telling me.
You should of course also know that the US GDP does significantly better under Democrats than Republicans (it's an easy objective fact to look up). One primary reason is the Dems don't focus exclusively on making such inequality worse.
In 1982 when Forbes first published the 400 richest, the richest person was worth around $5billion (in 2022 dollars). Now the richest person is worth $177B. Meanwhile, wages have been fairly flat.
Republicans think this is a good thing. History shows in general that it marks the end of nation's health.
0
10.
Diana 2 year s ago
#5... How about a picture of the "inequality" in America. At least they have roofs, which a lot of homeless Americans have not.
-1
11.
Ben 2 year s ago
Diana,
Homelessness is a problem, but the UN Report on poverty in the southern US is devastating, and that was mostly about non-homeless folks. The good news is that since the US has decided to cash out and remove resources from the middle class and working poor and give it to the rich, the wealth of nations like India and China have soared, lowing their poverty rates quite a bit. So the destruction of the US is at least benefiting the rest of the world.
Homelessness is a problem, but the UN Report on poverty in the southern US is devastating, and that was mostly about non-homeless folks. The good news is that since the US has decided to cash out and remove resources from the middle class and working poor and give it to the rich, the wealth of nations like India and China have soared, lowing their poverty rates quite a bit. So the destruction of the US is at least benefiting the rest of the world.
-1
12.
Felty 2 year s ago
Ben,
Who cares about the us? They don't even care about themselves so why bother
Who cares about the us? They don't even care about themselves so why bother
4
13.
Bab 2 year s ago
#38 2.5 million light-years
3
14.
Shirley 2 year s ago
Bab,
Technically both are correct. It is both 2.5 million light-years away and an image of Andromeda as it looked like 2.5 million years in the past.
Technically both are correct. It is both 2.5 million light-years away and an image of Andromeda as it looked like 2.5 million years in the past.
That's the sewer line
Talk to me about Socialism when you quit driving on publicly funded roads; quit calling publicly funded fire departments and law enforcement; quit flying on planes that rely on publicly funded air traffic controllers, and quit depending on a publicly funded military to keep you safe.
Yes I agree: socialism means public ownership of schools, utilities, law enforcement, defense, postal services, prisons, health care, transportation infrastructure, social services (many of these are listed in the US Constitution - e.g. postal service). Things associated with the public good not being driven solely by profit. I understand that Republicans (such as yourself I assume) think these should all be for profit and that things like equal access should be sacrificed for the gain of the capitalists. But it simply isn't efficient. Take health care: A socialist-based approach halves the cost and measurably increases positive outcomes (e.g. longevity), as shown each and every day by an enormous list of developed countries that have used this approach for decades.
Perhaps you are being a bit pedantic? Socialism isn't just a single form of government (though there have been attempts at such that generally don't work well). Rather socialism is an approach to working on a common solutions to broad social needs rather than a focus on profit. The right-wing in the US has painted any such goals (that don't benefit either the rich or the whites) as leading to communism or a socialist government. It's complete BS and fear mongering.
Marxism - aka socialism, communism, social justice, etc. - killed over 100 million of its own citizens in the 20th century. If that's not a high enough body count for you, then you are either ignorant or evil.
Tell me you don't know a thing about systemic economic inequality without telling me.
You should of course also know that the US GDP does significantly better under Democrats than Republicans (it's an easy objective fact to look up). One primary reason is the Dems don't focus exclusively on making such inequality worse.
In 1982 when Forbes first published the 400 richest, the richest person was worth around $5billion (in 2022 dollars). Now the richest person is worth $177B. Meanwhile, wages have been fairly flat.
Republicans think this is a good thing. History shows in general that it marks the end of nation's health.
Homelessness is a problem, but the UN Report on poverty in the southern US is devastating, and that was mostly about non-homeless folks. The good news is that since the US has decided to cash out and remove resources from the middle class and working poor and give it to the rich, the wealth of nations like India and China have soared, lowing their poverty rates quite a bit. So the destruction of the US is at least benefiting the rest of the world.
Who cares about the us? They don't even care about themselves so why bother
Technically both are correct. It is both 2.5 million light-years away and an image of Andromeda as it looked like 2.5 million years in the past.