EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 15
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Earlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
level of economic freedom = level of capitalism That not all things that come from government are bad is obvious. But that can be said for anything. The question is whether government spending will produce more benefits than private spending. Simply because some good things come out of it isn't an argument for it's existence. We know you can have too much government, just pick any random country and you'll likely see that. But can you have too much capitalism? The most capitalist country ever is America up to the 1930s, which lead the way for the liberal democracys of today, higher standards of living, abolishment of slavery, equality for all, etc -- yes, I know it had lots of flaws, but it's the best damn thing that ever happened to this world. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
It's not as if we even operated as a free market then. Pretty much every government superpower has used a protectionist policy to secure its place in the world, and we were able to back it up through exploitation in other places. The same goes for Britain, Japan, etc. You can't ask the government to provide a service without paying for it. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On August 26 2008 00:56 Jibba wrote: The closest we've been to pure capitalism was the 1900s-1920s which, while it allowed for an industrial revolution, also created some of the worst living conditions we've ever faced. Source? Again, not trying to be a dick, I just find that hard to believe. It's not as if we even operated as a free market then. Pretty much every government superpower has used a protectionist policy to secure its place in the world, and we were able to back it up through exploitation in other places. The same goes for Britain, Japan, etc. . I know. I said the most capitalistic. | ||
|
SkyTheUnknown
Germany2065 Posts
Most Europeans are hoping this won't become true and can't believe the fact McCain still has a true chance to become president. Americans seem to be undereducated in politics - otherwise the actual ignoring of the importance of this election can't be explained. | ||
|
SkyTheUnknown
Germany2065 Posts
On August 24 2008 08:27 TheosEx wrote: I like to keep my money, so I'm voting for McCain. Have to flame: You, Sir, are an Idiot. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
Obama wants to raise taxes on the exceedingly rich. The people who make 100K+ a year would be taxed the heaviest. Lets face it, no one needs more than that. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 26 2008 01:38 aRod wrote: Lets face it, no one needs more than that. I'm tired and have to write an internship paper so I'm quoting this now so you know I think this statement is totally bogus.  I'll make a proper response later. | ||
|
Kaesi
United States82 Posts
The fact that anyone can fall in line with the Neo-con movement is incredible. It really is. In the 1950's I could see it happening, but in today's world? With the Internet? It's appalling. Not that liberalism is the salvation. But holy hell, neo-con philosophy is beyond retarded. Why don't we just sell our country to Lockheed Martin, Exxon, and the Fed already? | ||
|
Flaccid
8848 Posts
On August 26 2008 02:30 Kaesi wrote: Very sad to be confronted with the fact that there is a vast portion of the population that is willfully ignorant and incapable of doing research on their own. This makes efficient and effective democracy unlikely for at least the near future. The good news is that they're probably all under the legal voting age =] | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On August 26 2008 02:13 Jibba wrote: I'm tired and have to write an internship paper so I'm quoting this now so you know I think this statement is totally bogus. I'll make a proper response later.I'm using the word need to mean a necessity or requirement for survival not a desire or urgent want. If you're going to write an essay on this symantic point please save yourself the time. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On August 26 2008 04:04 Jibba wrote: No, I was going to write about how there is no such thing as a need. The internet and penicillin are wants and wouldn't exist if we limited people to classical needs. Could I have some sort of a hint then, why my statement is, in your words, "totally bogus." | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
"The fact that anyone can fall in line with the Neo-con movement is incredible. It really is. In the 1950's I could see it happening, but in today's world? With the Internet? It's appalling. Not that liberalism is the salvation. But holy hell, neo-con philosophy is beyond retarded. Why don't we just sell our country to Lockheed Martin, Exxon, and the Fed already?" Perhaps you know more than you reveal [indeed, you dont make an argument just an assertion and so perhaps this post is way overboard but maybe you and others will find it informative. It was because of my disagreements with neo-cons that I did a little reading on them and what I found suprised me.]-- but the above quote demonstrates a real and I think important lack of knowledge on your part. Understanding the roots of neo-conservative thought is for your own good. I assume you are more left-leaning and as a result you should probably understand the congruences between your position and the neo-cons before you call them retarted. The neo-conservative movement was developed by a group of New York, Jewish, Ex-Communist intellectuals. The neo-cons agree with the communists/socilialists // democratic socialists (ie., those who don't advocate a violent worker revolution) that promoting "the greater good" "common good" etc etc. is the goal of the government. However, as communism failed again and again around the world (that doesn't mean it can't ever work) these socialists began to draw new conclusions. That is, they began to think that something was wrong at the very foundation of their political philosophy (probably based on the inability to restrict self-interset). They saw the relative prosperity in market based economies and the relative poverty of state-controlled markets. Perhaps their analysis was premature, but when they looked at the facts presenting themselves around the world they decided to shift their views. The new view was one that advocated capitalism only as much as their economists and analysts tell them is good for economic growth//common good. They are not advocates of laissez-faire. They agree with Marx's arguments on the accumulation of capital .They don't think that self-interset is a "good" thing. They are pragmatists through and through who beleive the free-market should be used only because of its social value. They are collectivists. They beleive positive (ie., literal not merely negative-obligatory) moral values can (and possibly should) be asserted by the government -- which anyone who argues for the redistrubution of wealth by force implicitly accepts. Your criticism -- a marxist shot [ie., monopoly/explotation] would be better leveled at libertarians or conservatives that fall under the milton friedman type. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Personal_Household_Income_U.png) | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
i mean mccain found a new girl while still in wedlock with his health disabled wife. edwards found a new girl while still in wedlock to his health disabled wife. yet they never really mentioned mccain's similar story and i bet there's a huge percentage of the public that have no idea mccain pulled a john edwards back in the day | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 26 2008 06:53 a-game wrote: you know, the edwards scandal was so similar to what mccain did in his first marriage, i really don't understand why the media barely mentioned mccain in that context. i mean mccain found a new girl while still in wedlock with his health disabled wife. edwards found a new girl while still in wedlock to his health disabled wife. yet they never really mentioned mccain's similar story and i bet there's a huge percentage of the public that have no idea mccain pulled a john edwards back in the day DUH A-game it's okay to cheat on your spouse as long as your a POW: /sarcasm | ||
|
humblegar
Norway883 Posts
Hint: the candidate who actually owns a computer. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 26 2008 07:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: DUH A-game it's okay to cheat on your spouse as long as your a POW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfbsS-EpAI /sarcasm The difference is that McCain wasn't running for President at the time. I don't care about their personal lives all that much, but it was utterly irresponsible to the entire Democratic party for Edwards to run. We knew he was a shit bag before, and he still is one. Maybe his wife is a bitch, who knows. What I do care about is that he contributed to the long fight between Hillary and Obama and if for some bizarre reason he had won, the Republicans would have a sure fire president right now. Someone castrate John Edwards. | ||
| ||
