Opinion of the hard lefty laborites who are upper middle class or better

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not really calling you an idiot as such. It is more that your attitudes are stupid. And not just stupid but also callous, thuggish and generally quite dangerous. The question is whether you have the capacity to change or whether you are some form of moral reprobate. A question that I can't answer - as amusing as it would be to heavily imply the latter - because I don't know you.

You are just failing to see my logic. I am among the same people that are being called "victims" in this thread. You seem to have some preconceived notion that I am the cruel manager, or the factory owner, when in fact I was just another dispensable employee. And I was and am fine with that. I provide labor, and I get paid for it. You seem to think that I am some sort of Randian protagonist, like Francisco D’Acconia, who views poor people as lazy scum. I am not against poor people-as I have stated before, I favor Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and would be willing to look at a universal healthcare system paid collectively through sales tax. What I find fundamentally wrong is the belief that "wealth is privilege" and that the very concept of private property is under attack. What I find disgusting is that some here in this thread seem to think that a businessman is responsible for the quality of his employee’s lives outside of the workplace.

ChairmanSanchez, I like you. So. Real talk:

1. You're still young--as, indeed, am I. You're clearly smart and manifestly capable of evolving your views in positive directions, as I remember you having 'white nationalist' leanings a couple of years ago.
2. That being the case, I sincerely hope you continue to do so.
3. If you don't want to be taken for less than you're worth, I'd highly recommend removing the Rand-themed signature, especially with that un-Christian and implicitly anti-Christian quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not really calling you an idiot as such. It is more that your attitudes are stupid. And not just stupid but also callous, thuggish and generally quite dangerous. The question is whether you have the capacity to change or whether you are some form of moral reprobate. A question that I can't answer - as amusing as it would be to heavily imply the latter - because I don't know you.

You are just failing to see my logic. I am among the same people that are being called "victims" in this thread. You seem to have some preconceived notion that I am the cruel manager, or the factory owner, when in fact I was just another dispensable employee. And I was and am fine with that. I provide labor, and I get paid for it. You seem to think that I am some sort of Randian protagonist, like Francisco D’Acconia, who views poor people as lazy scum. I am not against poor people-as I have stated before, I favor Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and would be willing to look at a universal healthcare system paid collectively through sales tax. What I find fundamentally wrong is the belief that "wealth is privilege" and that the very concept of private property is under attack. What I find disgusting is that some here in this thread seem to think that a businessman is responsible for the quality of his employee’s lives outside of the workplace.

ChairmanSanchez, I like you. So. Real talk:

1. You're still young--as, indeed, am I. You're clearly smart and manifestly capable of evolving your views in positive directions, as I remember you having 'white nationalist' leanings a couple of years ago.
2. That being the case, I sincerely hope you continue to do so.
3. If you don't want to be taken for less than you're worth, I'd highly recommend removing the Rand-themed signature, especially with that un-Christian and implicitly anti-Christian quote.

As for the Rand quote, that was a temporary pick inspired by a comment in another thread. As a Christian, I reject Rand's atheism and blatant hatred for Christians. I was not using it in it's original religious context as much as the political context that it can represent.

Oh, I understand the context in which it was meant and that Rand can be quoted in ways that don't directly involve her religious views, I just find the transactional understanding of guilt and implied transactional understanding of responsibility and sacrifice to be a profoundly worrisome denial of sin, which I think is a lot more directly morally and socially dangerous than denial of God.