|
On February 18 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:53 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty. Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around. "When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.htmlSure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked. And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation I'm not making conclusions about causation one way or another. I'm just pointing out the fairly indisputable conclusion that a high divorce rate in a population is an indication that there problems in the population. You guys need some lessons in reading comprehension. You're reading far more into what I am saying than you should.
The problem starts if you say an increase in divorce rate is just bad. It can be a sign of bad things like poverty, but it can also be a sign that people don't feel the social stigma of staying together despite being miserable together. So in your example, if african-americans have a much higher divorce rate than the rest of the country that might be a sign of something bad, like their economic status. That doesn't mean the divorce rate going up in for the entire country is neccesarily a bad thing.
|
On February 18 2012 05:01 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:53 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty. Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around. "When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.htmlSure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked. And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation I'm not making conclusions about causation one way or another. I'm just pointing out the fairly indisputable conclusion that a high divorce rate in a population is an indication that there problems in the population. You guys need some lessons in reading comprehension. You're reading far more into what I am saying than you should. That's not indisputable. What is divorce exactly? It's simply the members of a marriage deciding that the marriage should not be continued. This can mean many different things, ranging from a mistake to marry in the first place to people changing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. One could easily make the argument that the only reason divorce rates were low in the past was the social stigma of divorce: people who wanted one were scared to get one. What problems, exactly, would a high divorce rate indicate? (Consider that divorce rates have been falling over the past few decades). And no, divorce is not always accompanied with high economic pains, I've seen couples divorce relatively painlessly with an easy settlement and no hard feelings, and no court battles over it either.
Yea that is really the least indisputable thing I've ever heard someone say was indisputable actually.
|
On February 18 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 04:53 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:20 Tor wrote:On February 18 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:35 Mohdoo wrote:So do you think its just him trying to pander to extremists? On one hand, he goes on a big rant out contraception is a bad thing and that government doesn't talk about it enough. On the other hand, he votes to fund it. How does someone rationalize that? ?_? I already explained what Santorum is doing. He's starting a conversation about the underlying social problems in this country. Again, I don't speak for Santorum, but I'm guessing that if you asked him, if he would say that there isn't anything wrong with contraception. The problem are the unintentional consequences of its use and availability -- namely how it has enabled this culture of immoral behavior that contributes to problems like high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the spread of STD's, etc. It takes guts to even start this conversation in today's culture because we're living in an age of the cultural laissez-faire. All of the traditional anchors that held people to moral behavior (RELIGION) have been blown apart and denigrated by liberals and progressives. So now we're living in a Jersey Shore/Teen Mom culture where no one is accountable to behave themselves and be productive members of society. As a result, we have this swelling class of people that is dependent upon the federal government for survival. I can't even begin to explain how important of a change this is to our country, which was founded on the principal that people would be accountable to themselves (see my "republican virtue" discussion from above). You have absolutely zero basis for saying that the use and availability of contraceptives has contributed to higher divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and spreading STD's. Furthermore, you are in no position to determine what is "immoral". High divorce rates can be a good thing - It's not like in the past, the vast majority of married couples were two people that were actually right for each other. The high divorce rates could simply mean we've removed a cultural taboo on divorce, meaning people can take the better path for their mental (and sometimes physical) health - that of divorce. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock births is completely and 100% irrelevant. The important thing is having a child being born into and growing up in a stable household with both parents. And here is Exhibit A for why fixing social problems in the US is so hard: complete denial that they even exist and a refusal to judge people (which is why I alluded to moral relativism earlier). There is a field called sociology which studies these issues, they are not treated lightly. It is not complete denial, just because you believe that divorce is bad for society does not mean it is bad for society. It appears you are the one in complete denial, and your willingness to judge people without any support for your argument could actually be harmful to society. I haven't said nor mean to imply that there is an absolute correlation between divorce rates and "societal health," however defined, nor do I mean to say that divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always a bad thing. That said, on the whole, they are still decent indicators of societal problems. Think about it this way, it is a good thing that the African American population has incredibly high incidences of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, particularly when you consider their overall social-economic status? Are you saying more divorce and out of wedlock births lead to poverty, and the reason african americans have higher rates of poverty is because of their moral decay? I don't think you're qualified to make these correlations, i'd leave that to the sociologists. I guess as an indicator, you mean, where you find high divorce rates you'll find high poverty. But without doing any investigation, this would suggest that poverty is as likely the cause of divorce as divorce is the cause of poverty. Seriously though, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are making up your own hypothesis for social issues, and then assuming they are correct without doing any research, this is opposite of what one should do in a discussion. Basic research suggests poverty and divorce is linked, however, based on research it would appear poverty causes divorce, not the other way around. "When two-parent families fall into poverty, that significantly increases the chances that the family will break up http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/15/us/poverty-termed-a-divorce-factor.htmlSure, there are societal problems, but to approach them from a biased perspective (such as one based on religion or your perception of morality), will only help to blind society from the answers to these problems or even the questions that need to be asked. And finally, yes, when someone sees something like increased divorce rates, this indicates something. However, unless you are an expert on the subject and have done some research, then you cannot know for sure what that indicates. For all we know, high divorce rates could be caused by ice cream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation I'm not making conclusions about causation one way or another. I'm just pointing out the fairly indisputable conclusion that a high divorce rate in a population is an indication that there problems in the population. You guys need some lessons in reading comprehension. You're reading far more into what I am saying than you should.
It was great back in the day when women feared divorce because their husband was their sole source of income and the social stigma of divorce was too great. Also wonderful to have people stay in abusive relationships because divorce is "bad". Really good for kids I hear. Yep, divorce = bad and high divorce rate = problems in a population.
|
It should be a right that I have to pay for your health? So I work, and you don't. You lead a terrible life style, smoking, drinking, and I still should be responsible for your Health? No.
Personal. Responsibility.
Everything the Government does is done to 'help you' and be 'equal' /sarcasm. The same people who support SOPA, and ACTA, and COUNTLESS forms of oppression against it's people are the ones you want making the systems, providing your health care, your electricity, your water, your gas, your food, EVERYTHING. HOW could people want MORE GOVERNMENT, and especially a Government to provide for you!? The same incompetent fools who fuck us over, you want them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to care for us!? You want people who DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU to make up regulations and rules to "help you" and create "equality".
Nobody has the right to tell you what to do, how to do it, when you can. Though there are things we MUST let the Government, or an outside source say we cannot do/should not do, and those should be the extremes, not that you can't smoke on the side walk or you get 30 days in prison. Why is nobody responsible for themselves anymore? What happened to help yourself before you can help others.
Not one Government is a good Government. It's a necessary evil, everyone must accept that, and everyone should be aware that Government should be limited. HOW THE FUCK can you be free when you depend on the Government for your lively hood, without them, you couldn't do shit. Across the Globe, century after century, Governments have fallen and risen all because of their incompetence, how is this not a continual reminder that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, not you. When the hell have Corporations or the people of a nation been overthrown, hardly ever. What happens when you get rid of all the people with money to actually make a difference? What happens when your Government gets too out of control, and you have no money or influence to change things.
Corporations are demonized by the Liberal media, Capitalism is demonized by the media, of course a lot of people think it doesn't work - All they talk about is what doesn't work, or whats gone bad - and that's a very small fraction compared to how well everything else works. When is the last time you got a check from a poor person? When is the last time the Government made a product to make your Life easier? Yea greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad, NO SHIT. Do you seriously think every business or corporation is so because it wants to steal all your money!? No, most people go into business to provide a service, employ themselves, and employ others.
So glad people think that the right step is to FORCE people to be equal, by telling them what they can and cannot have, yea that's freedom alright, you're all free to do what we say! The Government grows, and grows, and grows, and grows, it may lose a little off the waist, but it will only continue to get larger. Capitalism is as close to nature as you can get, we're not going to progress as a species when we're told how to live and be by our Government, sorry.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Divorces are great for the economy. More marriages, double the purchases of appliances/televisions/cars, more property sales, and less tax benefits the government has to pay.
|
Again, the divorce rate has been falling since 1979.
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Marriage_divorce_education.pdf
The homicide rate is at its lowest level since the mid 60s.
Assault, rape, and robbery rates have been falling since 1991, and in all cases are lower than they were in 1980.
According to the CDC, the abortion rate has been falling since the mid 80s.
Moral decline? What moral decline? Our cultural is arguably more moral than it has ever been when you include things like racism and sexism. But even if you're just looking at divorce and violence, things have been getting better for decades.
|
On February 18 2012 05:24 v3chr0 wrote:
It should be a right that I have to pay for your health? So I work, and you don't. You lead a terrible life style, smoking, drinking, and I still should be responsible for your Health? No.
Personal. Responsibility.
Everything the Government does is done to 'help you' and be 'equal' /sarcasm. The same people who support SOPA, and ACTA, and COUNTLESS forms of oppression against it's people are the ones you want making the systems, providing your health care, your electricity, your water, your gas, your food, EVERYTHING. HOW could people want MORE GOVERNMENT, and especially a Government to provide for you!? The same incompetent fools who fuck us over, you want them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to care for us!? You want people who DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU to make up regulations and rules to "help you" and create "equality".
Nobody has the right to tell you what to do, how to do it, when you can. Though there are things we MUST let the Government, or an outside source say we cannot do/should not do, and those should be the extremes, not that you can't smoke on the side walk or you get 30 days in prison. Why is nobody responsible for themselves anymore? What happened to help yourself before you can help others.
Not one Government is a good Government. It's a necessary evil, everyone must accept that, and everyone should be aware that Government should be limited. HOW THE FUCK can you be free when you depend on the Government for your lively hood, without them, you couldn't do shit. Across the Globe, century after century, Governments have fallen and risen all because of their incompetence, how is this not a continual reminder that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, not you. When the hell have Corporations or the people of a nation been overthrown, hardly ever. What happens when you get rid of all the people with money to actually make a difference? What happens when your Government gets too out of control, and you have no money or influence to change things.
Corporations are demonized by the Liberal media, Capitalism is demonized by the media, of course a lot of people think it doesn't work - All they talk about is what doesn't work, or whats gone bad - and that's a very small fraction compared to how well everything else works. When is the last time you got a check from a poor person? When is the last time the Government made a product to make your Life easier? Yea greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad, NO SHIT. Do you seriously think every business or corporation is so because it wants to steal all your money!? No, most people go into business to provide a service, employ themselves, and employ others.
So glad people think that the right step is to FORCE people to be equal, by telling them what they can and cannot have, yea that's freedom alright, you're all free to do what we say! The Government grows, and grows, and grows, and grows, it may lose a little off the waist, but it will only continue to get larger. Capitalism is as close to nature as you can get, we're not going to progress as a species when we're told how to live and be by our Government, sorry.
The exact point of government is to AVOID nature. Why? Because history has shown us time and time and time and time again that if we leave everything purely to human nature that massive amounts of the population with be oppressed, exploited, or just straight up killed. Does the government need to be controlled? Absolutely. However, you are making a huge jump from "government needs to be controlled" -> "everything that is non-government is OK", which is a ridiculous claim. The rest of your post is just conservative dogma that has little point to it.
|
On February 18 2012 05:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:24 v3chr0 wrote:
It should be a right that I have to pay for your health? So I work, and you don't. You lead a terrible life style, smoking, drinking, and I still should be responsible for your Health? No.
Personal. Responsibility.
Everything the Government does is done to 'help you' and be 'equal' /sarcasm. The same people who support SOPA, and ACTA, and COUNTLESS forms of oppression against it's people are the ones you want making the systems, providing your health care, your electricity, your water, your gas, your food, EVERYTHING. HOW could people want MORE GOVERNMENT, and especially a Government to provide for you!? The same incompetent fools who fuck us over, you want them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to care for us!? You want people who DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU to make up regulations and rules to "help you" and create "equality".
Nobody has the right to tell you what to do, how to do it, when you can. Though there are things we MUST let the Government, or an outside source say we cannot do/should not do, and those should be the extremes, not that you can't smoke on the side walk or you get 30 days in prison. Why is nobody responsible for themselves anymore? What happened to help yourself before you can help others.
Not one Government is a good Government. It's a necessary evil, everyone must accept that, and everyone should be aware that Government should be limited. HOW THE FUCK can you be free when you depend on the Government for your lively hood, without them, you couldn't do shit. Across the Globe, century after century, Governments have fallen and risen all because of their incompetence, how is this not a continual reminder that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, not you. When the hell have Corporations or the people of a nation been overthrown, hardly ever. What happens when you get rid of all the people with money to actually make a difference? What happens when your Government gets too out of control, and you have no money or influence to change things.
Corporations are demonized by the Liberal media, Capitalism is demonized by the media, of course a lot of people think it doesn't work - All they talk about is what doesn't work, or whats gone bad - and that's a very small fraction compared to how well everything else works. When is the last time you got a check from a poor person? When is the last time the Government made a product to make your Life easier? Yea greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad, NO SHIT. Do you seriously think every business or corporation is so because it wants to steal all your money!? No, most people go into business to provide a service, employ themselves, and employ others.
So glad people think that the right step is to FORCE people to be equal, by telling them what they can and cannot have, yea that's freedom alright, you're all free to do what we say! The Government grows, and grows, and grows, and grows, it may lose a little off the waist, but it will only continue to get larger. Capitalism is as close to nature as you can get, we're not going to progress as a species when we're told how to live and be by our Government, sorry.
The exact point of government is to AVOID nature. Why? Because history has shown us time and time and time and time again that if we leave everything purely to human nature that massive amounts of the population with be oppressed, exploited, or just straight up killed. Does the government need to be controlled? Absolutely. However, you are making a huge jump from "government needs to be controlled" -> "everything that is non-government is OK", which is a ridiculous claim. The rest of your post is just conservative dogma that has little point to it.
Nobody said there should not be a Government, and I never said everything that is non-government is Ok.... Where are you getting this?
Government is needed, I actually have it in my post... did you read that part?
Does your reply have any substance either? You're reminding me of the media.
|
On February 18 2012 05:39 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 05:24 v3chr0 wrote:
It should be a right that I have to pay for your health? So I work, and you don't. You lead a terrible life style, smoking, drinking, and I still should be responsible for your Health? No.
Personal. Responsibility.
Everything the Government does is done to 'help you' and be 'equal' /sarcasm. The same people who support SOPA, and ACTA, and COUNTLESS forms of oppression against it's people are the ones you want making the systems, providing your health care, your electricity, your water, your gas, your food, EVERYTHING. HOW could people want MORE GOVERNMENT, and especially a Government to provide for you!? The same incompetent fools who fuck us over, you want them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to care for us!? You want people who DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU to make up regulations and rules to "help you" and create "equality".
Nobody has the right to tell you what to do, how to do it, when you can. Though there are things we MUST let the Government, or an outside source say we cannot do/should not do, and those should be the extremes, not that you can't smoke on the side walk or you get 30 days in prison. Why is nobody responsible for themselves anymore? What happened to help yourself before you can help others.
Not one Government is a good Government. It's a necessary evil, everyone must accept that, and everyone should be aware that Government should be limited. HOW THE FUCK can you be free when you depend on the Government for your lively hood, without them, you couldn't do shit. Across the Globe, century after century, Governments have fallen and risen all because of their incompetence, how is this not a continual reminder that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, not you. When the hell have Corporations or the people of a nation been overthrown, hardly ever. What happens when you get rid of all the people with money to actually make a difference? What happens when your Government gets too out of control, and you have no money or influence to change things.
Corporations are demonized by the Liberal media, Capitalism is demonized by the media, of course a lot of people think it doesn't work - All they talk about is what doesn't work, or whats gone bad - and that's a very small fraction compared to how well everything else works. When is the last time you got a check from a poor person? When is the last time the Government made a product to make your Life easier? Yea greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad, NO SHIT. Do you seriously think every business or corporation is so because it wants to steal all your money!? No, most people go into business to provide a service, employ themselves, and employ others.
So glad people think that the right step is to FORCE people to be equal, by telling them what they can and cannot have, yea that's freedom alright, you're all free to do what we say! The Government grows, and grows, and grows, and grows, it may lose a little off the waist, but it will only continue to get larger. Capitalism is as close to nature as you can get, we're not going to progress as a species when we're told how to live and be by our Government, sorry.
The exact point of government is to AVOID nature. Why? Because history has shown us time and time and time and time again that if we leave everything purely to human nature that massive amounts of the population with be oppressed, exploited, or just straight up killed. Does the government need to be controlled? Absolutely. However, you are making a huge jump from "government needs to be controlled" -> "everything that is non-government is OK", which is a ridiculous claim. The rest of your post is just conservative dogma that has little point to it. Nobody said there should not be a Government, and I never said everything that is non-government is Ok.... Where are you getting this? Government is needed, I actually have it in my post... did you read that part? Does your reply have any substance either? You're reminding me of the media.
RAWR LIBERAL MEDIA! CAPITALISM GOOD GOVERNMENT BAD
is pretty much all I got out of your post. You're reminding me of the (right-wing) media.
|
On February 18 2012 05:32 Jibba wrote:
Divorces are great for the economy. More marriages, double the purchases of appliances/televisions/cars, more property sales, and less tax benefits the government has to pay.
Actually, divorces are great for the economy. More divorces => more work for lawyers => less law school students debt => greater economy.
/sarcasm off
|
On February 18 2012 05:39 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 05:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 05:24 v3chr0 wrote:
It should be a right that I have to pay for your health? So I work, and you don't. You lead a terrible life style, smoking, drinking, and I still should be responsible for your Health? No.
Personal. Responsibility.
Everything the Government does is done to 'help you' and be 'equal' /sarcasm. The same people who support SOPA, and ACTA, and COUNTLESS forms of oppression against it's people are the ones you want making the systems, providing your health care, your electricity, your water, your gas, your food, EVERYTHING. HOW could people want MORE GOVERNMENT, and especially a Government to provide for you!? The same incompetent fools who fuck us over, you want them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to care for us!? You want people who DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU to make up regulations and rules to "help you" and create "equality".
Nobody has the right to tell you what to do, how to do it, when you can. Though there are things we MUST let the Government, or an outside source say we cannot do/should not do, and those should be the extremes, not that you can't smoke on the side walk or you get 30 days in prison. Why is nobody responsible for themselves anymore? What happened to help yourself before you can help others.
Not one Government is a good Government. It's a necessary evil, everyone must accept that, and everyone should be aware that Government should be limited. HOW THE FUCK can you be free when you depend on the Government for your lively hood, without them, you couldn't do shit. Across the Globe, century after century, Governments have fallen and risen all because of their incompetence, how is this not a continual reminder that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, not you. When the hell have Corporations or the people of a nation been overthrown, hardly ever. What happens when you get rid of all the people with money to actually make a difference? What happens when your Government gets too out of control, and you have no money or influence to change things.
Corporations are demonized by the Liberal media, Capitalism is demonized by the media, of course a lot of people think it doesn't work - All they talk about is what doesn't work, or whats gone bad - and that's a very small fraction compared to how well everything else works. When is the last time you got a check from a poor person? When is the last time the Government made a product to make your Life easier? Yea greedy people are greedy, and bad people are bad, NO SHIT. Do you seriously think every business or corporation is so because it wants to steal all your money!? No, most people go into business to provide a service, employ themselves, and employ others.
So glad people think that the right step is to FORCE people to be equal, by telling them what they can and cannot have, yea that's freedom alright, you're all free to do what we say! The Government grows, and grows, and grows, and grows, it may lose a little off the waist, but it will only continue to get larger. Capitalism is as close to nature as you can get, we're not going to progress as a species when we're told how to live and be by our Government, sorry.
The exact point of government is to AVOID nature. Why? Because history has shown us time and time and time and time again that if we leave everything purely to human nature that massive amounts of the population with be oppressed, exploited, or just straight up killed. Does the government need to be controlled? Absolutely. However, you are making a huge jump from "government needs to be controlled" -> "everything that is non-government is OK", which is a ridiculous claim. The rest of your post is just conservative dogma that has little point to it. Nobody said there should not be a Government, and I never said everything that is non-government is Ok.... Where are you getting this? Government is needed, I actually have it in my post... did you read that part? Does your reply have any substance either? You're reminding me of the media.
Capitalism good! "Liberal" media bad!
Ummm what? The media is precisely the result of capitalism. News outlets broadcast what they do because it's good for their ratings, which brings in more ad revenue. This is exactly how capitalism works.
As for them "demonizing" corporations, media is um, run by corporations? MSNBC is owned by General Electric. CNN is owned by Time Warner. ABC is owned by Disney. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are owned by News Corp, whose CEO Rupert Murdoch regularly tweets that Obama is a dangerous socialist.
Replace "government" with "democracy" in your rant, and then try and defend the same positions. Should "democracy" tell us how our society should be? Yes. Definitely.
|
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected.
|
On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected.
Just for the record, the US _is_ a democracy, namely a liberal democracy. You're using a definition of the term that does not correspond to the definition of democracy political scientists (and most of the population) use today to describe a system of government different from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. See here.
|
Replace "government" with "democracy" in your rant, and then try and defend the same positions. Should "democracy" tell us how our society should be? Yes. Definitely.
Not really. Just because the majority want something in society doesn't mean we should do that thing. Minorities have rights too.
|
On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected.
This is a great post. Voters want big entitlement programs, a huge military, and low taxes. Politicians have given us all of those things, and look at the debt. Even if one argues that deficits during a recession are a good thing, there's no reason to do that during a boom.
Politicians have to start making difficult decisions that may cost them their careers but help our country in the long run. Controlling the government has become more important than running it effectively.
|
On February 18 2012 06:46 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected. This is a great post. Voters want big entitlement programs, a huge military, and low taxes. Politicians have given us all of those things, and look at the debt. Even if one argues that deficits during a recession are a good thing, there's no reason to do that during a boom. Politicians have to start making difficult decisions that may cost them their careers but help our country in the long run. Controlling the government has become more important than running it effectively.
Uh... that's actually how our country is designed. It's designed to be inefficient and difficult. That way it is more difficult to erode the rights of the citizens. It's honestly very American that controlling our government is more important than running it effectively. That's how it's supposed to be!
|
On February 18 2012 06:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected. Just for the record, the US _is_ a democracy, namely a liberal democracy. You're using a definition of the term that does not correspond to the definition of democracy political scientists (and most of the population) use today to describe a system of government different from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. See here.
Democracy can be used in so many ways that it really tells nothing. Even if you use the term "republic", there are huge differences. France is a republic and might even have coined the term, but they have a democracy that works in a totally different way.
Something that does not actually constitute a requirement for a democracy or especially a republic is the right for everyone to be heard on an issue. And in that regard it is disturbing to see the big parties and their ability to suppres minorityopinions inside the party by having partylines, vetoing and the economic requirements. Now, that is actually one of the worst problems in a democracy as we see it today. You can say that democracies today are moving away from the primary ideals behind it and it has been doing so for years.
|
On February 18 2012 05:33 Signet wrote:
(...)Our cultural is arguably more moral than it has ever been(...)
And yet Santorum not just didn't follow Bachman, but looks strong in the race... LoL sorry had to point this out.
The main reason I came here was to ask about this: youtube about Ron Paul's delegate hoarding I mean is it really possible to win the nomination like this?
|
On February 18 2012 06:46 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected. This is a great post. Voters want big entitlement programs, a huge military, and low taxes. Politicians have given us all of those things, and look at the debt. Even if one argues that deficits during a recession are a good thing, there's no reason to do that during a boom. Politicians have to start making difficult decisions that may cost them their careers but help our country in the long run. Controlling the government has become more important than running it effectively.
The problem I feel with America is the lack awareness and education of the voting public. The extreme bias of mainstream media combined with, sorry for a lack of a better word, the ignorance of the general population about what is right for them means that politicians have to do wrong things to stay in office.
This can only be solved by making people aware of the problems in there demands and the focus of elections but how you wanne manage that is something of a problem ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
