Equality. . EQUALITY to a conservative to a liberal. More like this. equality conservative liberal
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (301)
[ 301 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#49 - dppwrestler
Reply +269 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
More like this.
#271 to #49 - TheBanana
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
how did you know the legs would be a perfect fit?
User avatar #280 to #49 - vanoreo
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
Well, it is more equal than the conservative side...

Minus the fact that the guy missing a large portion of his legs is in a ******** of pain...
#290 to #280 - johnshepherd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
Sarcasm?
User avatar #291 to #290 - vanoreo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
Kinda.

I'm not really sure anymore.
User avatar #310 to #280 - jessieqwertyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
BUT HE STILL LOOKS HAPPY
User avatar #138 to #49 - robertolee
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
This implies that you think helping someone less fortunate than yourself is going out of your way and painfully so (i.e chopping your legs off). When actually giving him the box that he clearly doesn't need would be just as fine.
User avatar #148 to #138 - dppwrestler
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
What I mean is that, financially speaking, giving such a large portion of one's profits to others does significantly impact his life and the burden is one that cripples those who are giving up as much as they are. I take part in charity myself, but to be required to give money I worked to make to others with no pre-requisite is just absurd. If I make a large profit off of owning a business and I have such a heavy amount of funding taken away from me and given to someone else, it leaves me stranded and without money to put into my own business to expand or save in dire situations. The point is, we should all put our hours in and we should all get out of life what we put into it. I believe people should be paid a fair amount for the importance and impact of their work and not be forced to give to those who do not do anything to help them as well.
#315 to #148 - kabala
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
All entitlement programs have prerequisites.
User avatar #158 to #148 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Trust me I totally agree everyone should have to put their hours in and work hard to achieve their goals but I also believe everyone should be allowed to start off on equal footing, I have had great advantages in my life and I only wish the same for others because not everyone starts in the same position in life and its naive to think that.

I also believe that if a person refuses to work and is just lazy then he/she deserve what they get but I do not believe they should be put onto the street to die.

What I basically meant by my comment was that giving what you DO NOT need (such as the box) is perfectly acceptable because it does not ruin your view of the game and now the person at the less advantage can see too which is only fair. Taking what is unnecessary is wrong and I agree with you there because that is inequality.

TLDR: Give the man the opportunity to see by giving what is necessary only
User avatar #175 to #158 - dppwrestler
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I completely understand what you're saying there. I started out pretty low, economically speaking, but me and my family have progressed by working hard. What I'm saying is that, while we should help those in need, taxing those with a higher GP a larger amount can be unjust if it affects the person in question for the negative. There comes a point where you can only give so much, even if it looks like some people have more than they need to live off of.
User avatar #188 to #175 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
And that is where we reach a happy medium. Giving enough so that your life is not seriously affected but that people who start off at a disadvantage have the same opportunities as you did is a great way for the world to progress. I do not believe in giving blindly to the poor as it makes them dependant, I study global development and international relations at university in England and in my studies I have seen that giving blindly to these poverty ridden countries makes them dependant and non-functional. Whereas setting them up with a starting point to build on ensures they have a prosperous future.

The only thing I hate about a free market capitalist society is that it steps on the poor and less fortunate to accumulate more capital, but that's a TransNational Corporation specifically.
User avatar #198 to #188 - dppwrestler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Well met, I'm a secondary school student in America and have noticed similar trends in my private studies. Hopefully people who notice these things as we do today will be the ones making decisions on these matters in the near future.
User avatar #209 to #198 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Trust me on this, people who notice these situations are generally the corrupt who have helped create these situation in the country or society. There isn't a single multinational governing body that isn't corrupt unfortunately.
User avatar #301 to #138 - Ruspanic
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
There's nothing wrong with using your money to help the poor. But remember that taxes are not voluntary donations, they're legally imposed.
User avatar #308 to #301 - robertolee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
Taxes are a social responsibility if you want to live if a better society, your money is put towards things which the country needs and usually pointless ****.
User avatar #317 to #308 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
Taxes are a necessary evil. As a general rule, people have the right to own their property and use it as they wish - in this case, they have a right to the money they earn and should be able to choose how to spend it. Taxes are a third party - the government - taking that money without explicit consent and spending it in ways the original owner has little control over. This is justified only insofar as it is necessary. As a general rule, individual rights should take precedence over the common good and certainly over the good of the state (though there are exceptions).

The government should not take it upon itself to make judgments about what people need and do not need (of their own property). Everyone is entitled to what they own, and no one is entitled to what others own. You do not have a positive natural right to goods or services at the expense of others, regardless of how little it would cost them.
User avatar #319 to #317 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/03/2013) [-]
Its true individuals rights should always take precedence over the benefit of the general peoples but taxes certainly do not infringe on your rights and are a social responsibility. Calling taxes a necessary evil is a little bit dramatic, if they were evil they would not be necessary, abolishing taxes would create economic polarization which is never good for any country.

Its true no government can know what is best for the people, especially the US government, as it does not know you as an individual but it can deliver basic human rights, would you really rather live in more comfort at the expense of other peoples education, home or human rights?

You do not have natural right to certain services and goods which are excessive but you do have a right to healthcare, education and shelter. All of which should be provided by the government and I will gladly pay my taxes so that others have the opportunities I have had as long as it does not infringe on my basic rights
#51 to #49 - anon id: 9795333d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
you sir are completely right
User avatar #64 to #51 - koobzacc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I see what you did there
User avatar #55 to #49 - shmochra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I do not completely agree but I had to thumb this.Very nice
User avatar #112 to #49 - rubyasshole
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
What is your name? I'm going to publish this (not on fj) and I want to give you the deserved credits for the idea. If you let me to do it

sorry about my poor english
User avatar #114 to #112 - dppwrestler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I normally go by Dirty, I had already published image but I welcome you to do the same.
User avatar #118 to #114 - rubyasshole
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Thank you. I know some "people" that need to see this and, understand it by this way
User avatar #144 to #118 - dppwrestler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Oh, could you also link me to the other site if possible? If it's like fb or something then don't worry about it.
#53 to #49 - SteveSlater
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Hell yes.
User avatar #54 to #49 - arandomhuman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
good one
#265 to #49 - coolcalx
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I'm a liberal, but holy **** that's funny
I'm a liberal, but holy **** that's funny
User avatar #60 - Willhelm
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
The one on the left is Equality.
The one on the left is Proportionality.
#68 to #60 - anon id: 8c4e3b32
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Two lefts?

You mean the one on the right is proportionality.
#69 to #68 - anon id: 8c4e3b32
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Wow, I'm an idiot. I didn't see the comment below mine.
Disregard what I said.
#63 to #60 - cinster
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
WHAT ABOUT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT!
WHAT ABOUT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT!
#83 to #63 - giggleassasin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
what about the one on the left?
User avatar #222 to #83 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
What about shut the **** up?
#312 to #63 - Willhelm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
...
User avatar #305 to #63 - coursicar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
oh god, that cracked me up!
#29 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +76 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
User avatar #320 to #29 - lilnuggetbob
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/10/2015) [-]
>politics.
>funny.
User avatar #30 to #29 - makedonski
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
This.
User avatar #38 to #30 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I find it funny that I posted this and the content, and I got thumbs either way.
User avatar #66 to #38 - andalitemadness
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Haha, didn't notice it was you both times.
User avatar #73 to #66 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Yeah, I agree with this picture I posted.

I just wanted to know how brain washed the people of FJ were

People here just do what the media tells them. Just regurgitate, rinse and repeat
User avatar #74 to #73 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
In simpler terms, they are ******* sheep
User avatar #105 to #74 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Do we look Scottish?
#167 to #105 - anon id: e029cc14
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Welsh*
User avatar #263 to #167 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Damn. It's been a while since I've heard the humping sheep stereotype.
User avatar #106 to #105 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
You don't sound too intelligent. That's 4 true ~sarcasm~
User avatar #108 to #106 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I mean. ******* sheep. Scottish. Play on words there.
#110 to #108 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
It's seems you have duped me into a misconstrue belief
#59 - rockmanneos
Reply +64 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
SUDDENLY!!!   
Everyone's an economic and/or political genius.   
Stay classy FJ.
SUDDENLY!!!
Everyone's an economic and/or political genius.
Stay classy FJ.
User avatar #65 to #59 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
They do it for the thumbs, my friend.

Just remember that.
#40 - captnpl
Reply +44 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
False.
The conservatives would pay to watch the game, thus ensuring a reasonable view and supporting the economy.
#58 to #40 - yerfdog
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Thus giving the short one another box to use.
Brilliant!
#230 - usurperkingzant **User deleted account**
+29 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#241 to #230 - kusalranawaka
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I think its more of a generalization to help people understand the basics
I think its more of a generalization to help people understand the basics
#250 to #241 - lordraine
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
If it was a generalization to help people understand the basics, the tall guy would be standing in a hole, the kid's box would be cut in half, and nobody could see the game.
User avatar #233 to #230 - hardcoreman
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
That is exactly what the **** I was thinking **** is way more complex than that
#1 - anon id: da454bfa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/26/2012) [-]
Other way around?
Why should the tall guy get less, it's not his fault he's tall, he's worked hard for it.
User avatar #14 to #1 - fosforgasxiii
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
What's up with all this "rich worked hard"-********. There are many people who work a lot harder than most rich people but that are still poor. Some people just gor rich by luck (hereditary richness, lottery, good investments...) while others went or stay poor by bad luck (bankruptcy, getting less chances/discrimination, social isolement, heavy illness...). I don't see much wrong to help those poor people, not every poor guy is a lazy **** or a profiteer.
User avatar #18 to #14 - nickhols
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
While I do believe rich people usually don't work for their wealth, most poor people are poor because they are lazy, a hardworking person will almost always make it to at least middle class, with the amount of aid we give in education
My friend came from a dirt poor family, and got a full ride to stanford, studying engineering, so I'm fairly sure he will make a decent amount of money
I find that in many cases poor people actually get many more chances than rich ones, at least in terms of education, the only kind of aid that should really matter
User avatar #24 to #18 - fosforgasxiii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
People can get from poor to middleclass when they work hard... because they get help and fair chances from the government. In countries with a good social security network, equal education and poverty reducing programs (like most European countries and Canada) this is quite easy, in the US it's a bit more tough (also depends which state you live in) and ofcourse the economical crisis also raises the difficulty to climb the social ladder.
#17 to #14 - blademontane
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #21 to #17 - fosforgasxiii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
First of all, I'm now stating my opinion, not absolute truth.

You can't make everyone equal, that's a utopia commonly known as communism. There are examples enough that show that this doesn't work. I'm more fan of the social-democratic model where the state has to give everyone the opportunity to build up his welfare. Ofcourse this costs money, and I think it is quite logical that those who can miss the most, give the most. You can call that discrimination but I don't it has such a negative effect on the rich. They may pay more taxes, but they are still richer than everyone else. The rich won't lose any welfare from it, but many poor citizens gain it. A "great win/little lose" system as I call it.

You can disagree and that's fine. You'll stand for your opinion and I for mine, that's democracy.

Sorry for long text and spelling errors.
User avatar #20 to #14 - blademontane
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
There is only discrimination as the government prefers to make everyone equal rather than treat everyone equally. You shouldn't be penalized for being rich.
User avatar #35 to #20 - ericzxvc
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
You're not penalized for being rich, are you crazy? Let me draw you a scenario.
John has three apples, but must give one away to his "society". He eats his two and is still hungry.
Mark has 15 apples, he must give 5 away to his "society". He eats three and is full. He then has 7 apples and is full. Whereas John has zero apples and is still hungry. Mark then says he is being penalized and that he is getting treated unfairly. But John is still hungry and has no apples, and Mark still is full and has infinitely more apples then John.
The point is that the rich will still be richer, they will still have a better life then the poor, they don't NEED all of their money. A poor person needs all their money, and yet they have to give a larger percentage of it away. A person is not being penalized for having to pay the same % of their income as everyone else. It's crazy that in the case where a rich person has too much money to know what to do with that they will NEVER use all of, and a poor person who barely makes enough money to survive; that it's the rich person complaining.
User avatar #2 to #1 - Blargosnarf
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
he gets less because he doesn't require the advantage of more, he can see just fine without it.
User avatar #4 to #2 - blademontane
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
There are two types of equality. Either treat everyone equally or make everyone equal. Hitler seemed to prefer the latter.
User avatar #8 to #4 - fosforgasxiii
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
How did Hitler prefer to make everyone equal? Everyone that wasn't arian or didn't support his party was inferior according to him. And the only equaltity for the others was that they all had to serve in the army during a devestating world war.
I don't know about you but that's not my vision of equality.
User avatar #46 to #8 - splinfinity
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, but by Godwin's Law, you have just lost the argument. Never bring Hitler into a serious argument.
User avatar #304 to #46 - fosforgasxiii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
But I didn't bring up Hitler, blademontane did.
User avatar #9 to #8 - blademontane
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
His vision was to make every man a perfect human - Aryan. 6 ft, blonde hair, blue eyes no defects at all. Obviously in the war there were exceptions.
User avatar #11 to #9 - fosforgasxiii
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
But that's not what this picture is about. This is about socio-economical equality, not physical or ethnic equality.
User avatar #12 to #11 - blademontane
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
I know. It was a type of metaphor but to be honest, the people who work harder should be rewarded instead of the people who do nothing.
User avatar #15 to #12 - fosforgasxiii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
#6 to #4 - anon id: 65d318d3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
fourth comment and already a godwin, nice, buddy
#5 to #4 - swiftykidd **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #159 - drewbridge
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
So, let me get this straight......

The one on the left is equal distribution no matter who you are, and the one on the right is RE-distrubution of wealth depending on how wealthy you are?
User avatar #299 to #159 - Pikachuuu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
unfortunately, millions of Americans think it should be that way
User avatar #318 to #299 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
like....what?
#235 - Hawke
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
Conservative = Unequal distribution of wealth   
   
Liberal = Equal distribution of poverty
Conservative = Unequal distribution of wealth

Liberal = Equal distribution of poverty
User avatar #215 - theaceofthespade
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
This is quite correct - except that in this scenario, they each paid for one box, and then some asshole took the tall guy's box and gave it to the short guy.
User avatar #225 to #215 - thisisspartah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/27/2012) [-]
its like tax, every working person pays tax, and if your not working and trying to find a job you can revive help from the government, or, if your supporting a family you may revive certain benefits from the government to stop you from living in poverty, and for some other people that are disabled, they may need even more help to cope with there disability.
That how it is in New Zealand where i live, im not sure how it is in America.
#281 to #225 - captnpl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
The same idea, but people abuse the **** out of it.
User avatar #298 to #281 - Pikachuuu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/28/2012) [-]
and to think i was the only conservative on this website...