| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
"Romney is a big liar!" Agreed, so is Obama "Romney is a flip flopper, he'll say anything to get elected!" Agree, so is Obama and so will Obama. Obama supporters and the media have deified the dude so much over the years they can't see that he's every bit as slimy and corrupt as Romney or any other politician, always has been, always will be. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On October 10 2012 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Oh sorry, I didn't realize those videos contained full context and were in a reasonable time frame of each other. It matters because otherwise they'd be meaningless. Sorry I apologize, here are some timestamps. + Show Spoiler + lip "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing [Romneycare], then that will be a model for the nation." –Mitt Romney, while campaigning for president in Baltimore in 2007 Flop "At the time I crafted the plan in the last campaign I was asked is [Romneycare] something that you would have the whole nation do, and I said no. This is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation." – Mitt Romney in a 2011 Republican presidential primary debate Flip "Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform." – Mitt Romney, Meet the Press interview (Sept. 9, 2012) Flop "Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety." – Mitt Romney, Hugh Hewitt Show interview (Sept. 10, 2012) Flip Romney, speaking in 2012 about the U.S. auto industry's comeback: "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back." Flop Romney, writing in a 2008 New York Times op-ed titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt": "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Flip "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." – Mitt Romney, in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy. In 2002, Romney also said, "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose." Flop "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position." – Mitt Romney, in a 2007 Iowa Straw poll debate Flip Romney in 2012: "I don't manage the money that I have. In order to make sure that I didn't have a conflict of interest while I was governor or while I was considering a run for national office, I had a blind trust established." Flop Romney in 1994: "The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will, which is to say, you can always tell the blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules." Flip Romney in June 2011: "I believe the world is getting warmer … I believe that humans contribute to that." Flop Romney in October 2011: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet." Flip "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." –Mitt Romney in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy Flop "When I was running for office for the first time in 1994, I was trying to define who I was…. I've said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan." ––Mitt Romney in a 2006 Q&A with Human Events Flip "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them." –Mitt Romney in a 2002 gubernatorial debate Flop "I don't support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose." –Mitt Romney, in a 2008 interview with conservative bloggers Flip "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and representing our country there." –Mitt Romney, reflecting in a 2007 Boston Globe interview on the Vietnam War period, when he received a deferment to work as a Mormon missionary in France Flop "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam." –Mitt Romney, as quoted in the Boston Herald in 1994 | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 10 2012 03:41 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sorry I apologize, here are some timestamps. + Show Spoiler + lip "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing [Romneycare], then that will be a model for the nation." –Mitt Romney, while campaigning for president in Baltimore in 2007 Flop "At the time I crafted the plan in the last campaign I was asked is [Romneycare] something that you would have the whole nation do, and I said no. This is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation." – Mitt Romney in a 2011 Republican presidential primary debate Flip "Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform." – Mitt Romney, Meet the Press interview (Sept. 9, 2012) Flop "Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety." – Mitt Romney, Hugh Hewitt Show interview (Sept. 10, 2012) Flip Romney, speaking in 2012 about the U.S. auto industry's comeback: "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back." Flop Romney, writing in a 2008 New York Times op-ed titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt": "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Flip "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." – Mitt Romney, in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy. In 2002, Romney also said, "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose." Flop "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position." – Mitt Romney, in a 2007 Iowa Straw poll debate Flip Romney in 2012: "I don't manage the money that I have. In order to make sure that I didn't have a conflict of interest while I was governor or while I was considering a run for national office, I had a blind trust established." Flop Romney in 1994: "The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will, which is to say, you can always tell the blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules." Flip Romney in June 2011: "I believe the world is getting warmer … I believe that humans contribute to that." Flop Romney in October 2011: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet." Flip "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." –Mitt Romney in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy Flop "When I was running for office for the first time in 1994, I was trying to define who I was…. I've said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan." ––Mitt Romney in a 2006 Q&A with Human Events Flip "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them." –Mitt Romney in a 2002 gubernatorial debate Flop "I don't support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose." –Mitt Romney, in a 2008 interview with conservative bloggers Flip "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and representing our country there." –Mitt Romney, reflecting in a 2007 Boston Globe interview on the Vietnam War period, when he received a deferment to work as a Mormon missionary in France Flop "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam." –Mitt Romney, as quoted in the Boston Herald in 1994 Some of those are flip flops, most are not. Mostly its just nit picking or you can't tell because there's no context. Really no different from Obama flip flops. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 10 2012 03:07 sam!zdat wrote: Point to one place where I expressed a desire to a) throw money away on anything or b) be in good standing with liberals Doesn't matter if you want to be in good standing with liberals or not. It's what you get when you shrug your shoulders at education spending more than doubling over the past few decades with no tangible improvement in results from students. Because steve jobs has A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA Jesus why do people think he's the fucking messiah or something. No way I'd want steve jobs teaching school. for fuck's sake. He's good at making shiny white electro-crack but that's about it. I hope to go my life without ever owning a single thing from Apple so no messiah worship here. I guess I just had you confused with the other sam!zdat who said "I have a degree in English and I could teach a high school history curriculum, for example, with a little prep time." Or were those extra years in college the real difference? Anyone with a college degree can handle high school subjects but someone with a high school diploma couldn't handle a high school subject because.... Don't be obtuse. Everyone knows Israel plays a totally disproportionate role in American foreign policy. And what is the proportionate role it should play? Sending a "Sorry to hear you got nuked" card after the fact? People have been talking about acting against self-interest. We (supposedly) want all the Middle East's oil and all we'd have to do is let them have their way with wiping Israel off the map. And convert to Islam. You're too much of a stooge to listen, but I wouldn't consider any of those people "Marxists." I'm a Marxist, not a Marxist-Leninist. Get your head out of your ass and go read some history. I will kindly remind you Rule #1 which has nothing to do with that other thing I won't mention. But rest assured I know quite a bit on history and on the political spin the failures of Marxism require. (btw, a Marxist that doesn't care to be in good standing with liberals? They too wishy-washy and conservative for ya?) Also, fucking Wade Giles? Are you serious? It's fucking Mao Zedong, get with the pinyin man. I'll accept Beijing over Peiking but Ze Dong remains Tse Tung to me. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 10 2012 04:08 dvorakftw wrote: Doesn't matter if you want to be in good standing with liberals or not. It's what you get when you shrug your shoulders at education spending more than doubling over the past few decades with no tangible improvement in results from students. Am I happy about the state of education in this country? Absolutely not. Do I think your "tangible improvement" means a rat's ass? Fuck no. You obviously don't know the first thing about education. Your attitude about education is the problem, not the solution. Do we need to gut our educational system from the bottom up and rebuild it? Yes. Should we take money away from education because the line on your stupid fucking graph? No! (edit: education is the second most important thing a civilization can spend effort on, so you are never going to convince me than an education budget is "too much," only that it's badly spent, which I agree on) I hope to go my life without ever owning a single thing from Apple so no messiah worship here. I guess I just had you confused with the other sam!zdat who said "I have a degree in English and I could teach a high school history curriculum, for example, with a little prep time." Or were those extra years in college the real difference? Anyone with a college degree can handle high school subjects but someone with a high school diploma couldn't handle a high school subject because.... Yes. There is an enormous difference between someone with a BA in anything (mine happens to be from a top school - the one Steve Jobs dropped out of in fact, but that's neither here nor there) and someone with a high school diploma. A (real) college education MATTERS, and is a very different thing from a high school diploma. I can't believe you are suggesting an equivalence here. What is your level of education? And what is the proportionate role it should play? Sending a "Sorry to hear you got nuked" card after the fact? People have been talking about acting against self-interest. We (supposedly) want all the Middle East's oil and all we'd have to do is let them have their way with wiping Israel off the map. And convert to Islam. Wanting oil IS against our self-interest. We can't think about the long term, because we are a democracy, and democracies can't do that. That is why the US will not outlast the 21st century in its present form. I'll make book on that. the creation of Israel was an enormous mistake in the first place, but I am not gonna get involved in that can of worms. It's there and we have to deal with it. But we shouldn't be held hostage to the fucking zionists. I will kindly remind you Rule #1 which has nothing to do with that other thing I won't mention. But rest assured I know quite a bit on history and on the political spin the failures of Marxism require. (btw, a Marxist that doesn't care to be in good standing with liberals? They too wishy-washy and conservative for ya?) I'll accept Beijing over Peiking but Ze Dong remains Tse Tung to me. If you want to be some sort of obtuse wade giles hipster, at least spell the pinyin you aren't using correctly. It's "Zedong," one word. edit: what is "rule number 1" and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that? What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about. (If you say something from the Manifesto I'm gonna do something rash and ill-considered - nobody cares about that pamphlet) edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure") edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one? edit: I don't care to be in good standing with liberals because I don't believe in the free market and civil liberties above all other concerns (you do know what a "liberal" is, right, and that you are one?) I also don't care about being in good standing with "progressives" because I am not a Keynesian and I loathe identity politics. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 10 2012 03:20 radiatoren wrote: I think there is a lot to be said about cultural differences as you mention. If you look at it from an overall view the educational systems are very diverse in Europe, but a few common ideas are behind it. Most schools in Europe are generally based around an idea of "nobody is stronger than their weakest link" and "prioritize a lot on helping the weakest pupils". I think that is a big part of why Europe is doing so well in the international tests. Less socialist-fobia and therefore a better assurance of minimum-standards instead of focusing on the strongest is probably the biggest difference between the EU and US educational system. I promise you with every fiber of my being that the problems with education in the United States have less than 0.00000000000001% to do with "socialist-fobia" and "focusing on the strongest" but thanks for the contribution to this discussion! | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:59 xDaunt wrote: As I have infamously remarked many times before, I'm not trying to change anyone's minds politically here in this thread. Why should I bother? Most of the liberal posters in this thread take their news from Jon Stewart (or worse) without even an ounce of critical curiosity. *cough* Drudge report *cough* :-) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 10 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote: edit: what is "rule number 1" and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that? What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about. (If you say something from the Manifesto I'm gonna do something rash and ill-considered - nobody cares about that pamphlet) edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure") edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one? edit: I don't care to be in good standing with liberals because I don't believe in the free market and civil liberties above all other concerns (you do know what a "liberal" is, right, and that you are one?) I also don't care about being in good standing with "progressives" because I am not a Keynesian and I loathe identity politics. Speaking of which, what exactly are you politically? So far, you have defied every box into which I would put you. "Marxism" in the context in which you're using it is more of a philosophy than a political doctrine. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Am I happy about the state of education in this country? Absolutely not. Do I think your "tangible improvement" means a rat's ass? Fuck no. You obviously don't know the first thing about education. Your attitude about education is the problem, not the solution. Do we need to gut our educational system from the bottom up and rebuild it? Yes. Should we take money away from education because the line on your stupid fucking graph? No! (edit: education is the second most important thing a civilization can spend effort on, so you are never going to convince me than an education budget is "too much," only that it's badly spent, which I agree on) So let's fix the problem, as long as it involves doing the same thing we've been doing for 25 years with negligible results, spending more and more money. All you're saying is "WHO CARES BOUT YOUR FUCKIN NUMBERS ITS EDUCATION ITS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR WE CANT EVAR SPEND LESS MONEY ON IT" which makes absolutely no sense. The goal should be achievement, not an amount of money. Yes. There is an enormous difference between someone with a BA in anything (mine happens to be from a top school - the one Steve Jobs dropped out of in fact, but that's neither here nor there) and someone with a high school diploma. A (real) college education MATTERS, and is a very different thing from a high school diploma. I can't believe you are suggesting an equivalence here. What is your level of education? You're making it real obvious that a REAL college education does matter. It provides an easy way to bullshit about your own alleged superiority. Critical thinking skills? Not so much, obviously. Wanting oil IS against our self-interest. We can't think about the long term, because we are a democracy, and democracies can't do that. That is why the US will not outlast the 21st century in its present form. I'll make book on that. Wanting the substance that more than any other makes your comfortable life possible is wrong? The substance that more than any other makes it possible for the United States and the other Western nations to have the highest standard of living in history? We'll just leave your hysterical prediction to stand for itself. I'd take you up on your offer to make a book on it, but I wouldn't want my great-grandchildren to leave yours destitute in 2100. the creation of Israel was an enormous mistake in the first place, but I am not gonna get involved in that can of worms. It's there and we have to deal with it. But we shouldn't be held hostage to the fucking zionists. Tell us what you really think about the Jews. But of course, you're not anti-Semitic, you just say that their exercise of their human right to national self-determination was wrong. Denying the Jews the right to have a country of their own in their historic homeland after 2000 years of near-constant violent discrimination nearly everywhere in the world is not anti-Semitism, it's just being against those fucking Zionists. If you want to be some sort of obtuse wade giles hipster, at least spell the pinyin you aren't using correctly. It's "Zedong," one word. edit: what is "rule number 1" and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that? What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about. It's sad that you've read all those writers and your next paragraph makes it clear that you learned absolutely nothing about Marxism from them and aren't qualified to judge whether someone knows what they're talking about re: Marxism. edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure") This is more of the same stupid dodging that Western Marxists ginned up in order to reconcile the idealism of Marxism with the awful realities of Stalinism. Marxism is a critique of capitalism and it is a theory of how to organize a society all on its own, and if you deny that, you're either lying or you don't know shit about Marxism. Also, please stop insulting all the committed Marxists who toiled and murdered for decades to bring about a "Communist society." They would be very offended to learn that some puffed-up little bourgeoisie had determined that, in order to defend Marxism, their efforts had to be trashed as a "very bad version of Marxism." Nice bigoted insult against American Christians, too! It's plain to see that that college education really had a positive effect on your ability to reason and argue. Sadly, the Soviet Union and China from 1949 to 1976 were not "very bad versions" of Marxism, they were Marxism as best applied by people who honestly thought they were creating a society based on Marxism as best they could. It's just reactionaries like you who actually think that Marxism just hasn't been tried right yet. edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one? edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one? http://libcom.org/forums/theory/context-marxs-i-am-not-marxist-quote-09062009 For someone who name-drops like it means something and basks in his own erudition, you sure managed to present that quote of Marx's with absolutely zero context in order to make it sound like something it wasn't. You are aware that Marx was dead far before Marxists were running states in the name of Marxism, right? So your trying to imply that Marx was against the brutality of state communism is anachronistic and silly. edit: I don't care to be in good standing with liberals because I don't believe in the free market and civil liberties above all other concerns (you do know what a "liberal" is, right, and that you are one?) I also don't care about being in good standing with "progressives" because I am not a Keynesian and I loathe identity politics. You should be ashamed to say that you're proudly not a classical liberal. Speaking of which, what exactly are you politically? So far, you have defied every box into which I would put you. "Marxism" in the context in which you're using it is more of a philosophy than a political doctrine. He's a college know-it-all hippie who is still recycling all the old arguments - still popular in Marxist circles - cooked up in the aftermath of the Secret Speech. What he doesn't know is that all these arguments were tossed on the ash heap of history by anyone not a Marxist decades ago. | ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
On October 10 2012 03:40 Zaqwert wrote: Why are Obama supporters in such denial? "Romney is a big liar!" Agreed, so is Obama "Romney is a flip flopper, he'll say anything to get elected!" Agree, so is Obama and so will Obama. Obama supporters and the media have deified the dude so much over the years they can't see that he's every bit as slimy and corrupt as Romney or any other politician, always has been, always will be. Ok, I'll bite. I've seen plenty of stories and videos on Romeny flopping around like a fish out of water but can't say I've seen any articles or videos that Obama has directly said one thing and switched it afterwards? Could you offer up some sources too this, I would like to read/watch them, please! | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 10 2012 05:05 Shelke14 wrote: Ok, I'll bite. I've seen plenty of stories and videos on Romeny flopping around like a fish out of water but can't say I've seen any articles or videos that Obama has directly said one thing and switched it afterwards? Could you offer up some sources too this, I would like to read/watch them, please! Obama flip flopped pretty hard on the the Foreign Intelligence Service Act, but he was just a senator then. He also flip flopped on running a presidential campaign with public funding, but that again was before he was elected. Since he's been in office he's been a lot less grandiose with the hope and what-not so there's probably less to pin on him, though I'm sure there are some things. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 10 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote: Speaking of which, what exactly are you politically? So far, you have defied every box into which I would put you. "Marxism" in the context in which you're using it is more of a philosophy than a political doctrine. That's because I'm a philosopher, not a politician. There's no spot for me in the American political spectrum. My only political platform at this time is that our old ideas are not working and we need to think "outside the box," so to speak. I just want to open up the discourse. Do I have some ideas? Sure. But I hardly know anything, it will take lots of people working together to invent a new system. (edit: I should say, it's also because Marxism is not and has never been a political doctrine. Marxism-Leninism is a political doctrine. Maoism is a political doctrine. Marxism is not. It is a philosophy/theory, however you want to think of the difference. One becomes a Marxist, and then attempts to formulate a political theory from it to suit one's political moment. Marxism emphasizes above all the dynamics of history, so Marxism as a static political doctrine would be self-refuting) On October 10 2012 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: So let's fix the problem, as long as it involves doing the same thing we've been doing for 25 years with negligible results, spending more and more money. All you're saying is "WHO CARES BOUT YOUR FUCKIN NUMBERS ITS EDUCATION ITS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR WE CANT EVAR SPEND LESS MONEY ON IT" which makes absolutely no sense. The goal should be achievement, not an amount of money. Please don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly rejected the idea of "the same thing we've been doing for 25 years." My point is not that we SHOULD spend lots of money, just that the idea that there is such a thing as TOO MUCH money on education is for me a nonstarter. You're making it real obvious that a REAL college education does matter. It provides an easy way to bullshit about your own alleged superiority. Critical thinking skills? Not so much, obviously. This is just an ad hominem attack. I'm not claiming to be superior, I'm being forceful about my views, one of which is that a college education is important. That's, like, the least radical of my positions. Wanting the substance that more than any other makes your comfortable life possible is wrong? The substance that more than any other makes it possible for the United States and the other Western nations to have the highest standard of living in history? Because it is not viable in the long term, and gets us into wars. We could remove ourselves from dependency on fossil fuel, if we had the will. Humans are smart. We'll just leave your hysterical prediction to stand for itself. I'd take you up on your offer to make a book on it, but I wouldn't want my great-grandchildren to leave yours destitute in 2100. Fair enough, that's generous. Tell us what you really think about the Jews. But of course, you're not anti-Semitic, you just say that their exercise of their human right to national self-determination was wrong. Denying the Jews the right to have a country of their own in their historic homeland after 2000 years of near-constant violent discrimination nearly everywhere in the world is not anti-Semitism, it's just being against those fucking Zionists. Shall I take away your home and give it back to the Apache or whatever? How would you feel about that? Would you become a terrorist? Whatever, not getting involved in this. If you want to think I'm an anti-semite, go ahead. Couldn't be farther from the truth. I am an anti-Zionist and I'll stand by that. I don't think zionism is good for Jewish people. (edit: what I refuse to do is treat Jewish people with ideological kidgloves and let the Israeli government [standing for "Jewish people" of course because they're obviously the same thing] get away with its ridiculous excesses. The Israelis need to grow up and learn to get along just like the Arabs do) It's sad that you've read all those writers and your next paragraph makes it clear that you learned absolutely nothing about Marxism from them and aren't qualified to judge whether someone knows what they're talking about re: Marxism. This is more of the same stupid dodging that Western Marxists ginned up in order to reconcile the idealism of Marxism with the awful realities of Stalinism. Marxism is a critique of capitalism and it is a theory of how to organize a society all on its own, and if you deny that, you're either lying or you don't know shit about Marxism. Marxism IS NOT A THEORY OF HOW TO ORGANIZE SOCIETY. You are the one who doesn't know shit. Tell me where Marx tells us how to organize society, PLEASE!! (edit: even if he made suggestions for the mid 19th century, it would fly in the face of Marxist theory to assume that you could apply those suggestions to a later moment in history) Also, please stop insulting all the committed Marxists who toiled and murdered for decades to bring about a "Communist society." They would be very offended to learn that some puffed-up little bourgeoisie had determined that, in order to defend Marxism, their efforts had to be trashed as a "very bad version of Marxism." Nice bigoted insult against American Christians, too! It's plain to see that that college education really had a positive effect on your ability to reason and argue. What? You want to say Marxism is bad, and then insult me for agreeing that all these "committed Marxists" died for a poor cause? Have your cake or eat it. I'll stand by my comment about Christians. I respect the fuck out of the Bible (and I've read it, to boot), and most Christians wouldn't think the first thing they thought if they understood the book. Look, while we're talking about Christians, calling me a Stalinist is like calling a Protestant a Catholic. You can understand that, can't you? Sadly, the Soviet Union and China from 1949 to 1976 were not "very bad versions" of Marxism, they were Marxism as best applied by people who honestly thought they were creating a society based on Marxism as best they could. I mean, you can claim that... Why? He's a college know-it-all hippie who is still recycling all the old arguments - still popular in Marxist circles - cooked up in the aftermath of the Secret Speech. What he doesn't know is that all these arguments were tossed on the ash heap of history by anyone not a Marxist decades ago. Sick burn man | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it means so many things to different people historically, there is no stable framework, just a bunch of intuitions. among which are general welfare, justice, etc that are rather socialist. wade giles is like, enginese. there is no way you can pronounce that shit btw if you did not take a course in marxism covering say the 1844 manuscripts, there's really no basis comments like marx was not against stalin etc. 19th century philosophy is all sorts of weird. sometimes intellectual fashions have totalizing effects that are rather dangerous, but this is why we have history so we learn from stuff like this. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:34 NovaTheFeared wrote: I want to bring the education debate back to a question of numbers. The facts show student achievement flat for the last 30-40 years despite education spending per pupil up at least 2, and by some measures up to 3, times. The US spends nearly the most on K-12 education, per pupil, among OECD countries. If teachers are also chronically underpaid, where is the money going? My mom was a teacher at a very very poor elementary school, one year my Mom's class had two students who spoke english as their first language... They got extra help from the government, and extra help from a separate private for PROFIT company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdisonLearning who is supposedly supposed to increase the effectiveness of the schools, by lowering costs, and improving schools results at the same time, and I guess they make the difference? Basically the school had steps they had to take, and edison was supposed to "turn around" the school into a good one because of these steps. What ended up happening supposedly is a lot of the money went in to administrators and such that didn't actually deal with the kids, their job was to evaluate teachers, and figure out methods to raise the scores and sat in on classes and such.. These people aren't teachers, and as far as I know never were teachers. The school still had issues with funding such as not being able to afford supplies etc, I've heard this from many poor schools. The schools i attended didn't really have this issue because I lived in much nicer neighborhoods. I don't know if these administrators are needed or not, but basically they changed the curriculum often, and teachers were not given any kind of leash on what they taught and how they taught it. Basically they taught to the tests to elementary school children, with a huge focus on math and english(especially english since so many students had trouble reading etc, due to speaking and dealing mostly in spanish). I honestly don't know whats going on with the school because I moved to Portland, and my Mom moved to KY, and It might be a bad example because there aren't that many of these Edison schools left according to Wiki because they ended up not making money. | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 10 2012 05:15 oneofthem wrote: >classical liberalism it means so many things to different people historically, there is no stable framework, just a bunch of intuitions. among which are general welfare, justice, etc that are rather socialist. wade giles is like, enginese. there is no way you can pronounce that shit btw if you did not take a course in marxism covering say the 1844 manuscripts, there's really no basis comments like marx was not against stalin etc. 19th century philosophy is all sorts of weird. sometimes intellectual fashions have totalizing effects that are rather dangerous, but this is why we have history so we learn from stuff like this. It's a little loose of a term, but not as loose as you suggest. Wiki actually does a decent job of summing up liberalism. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property. Classical liberals simply tend to favor capitalism as a means to these ends, while modern liberals (in the American sense) lean towards a socialist or more mixed economy. It's important to note that "equality" in the sense of classical liberalism meant "equality under the law," in which the law treats everyone equally, not equality in terms of economics in which the law must treat different groups differently in order to achieve results. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
1) Pay teachers by performance. I think unions can be useful, in this case teachers unions have really fucked our students. It doesn't make sense to have teachers pay be dictated by seniority. It really pained me, as a student of the public school system, to see young bright teachers come in and do a great job teaching while they got paid less than half of what some old fogey was getting paid for doing a terrible job. The bright ones leave when they realize that it will bet least 15-20 years before they get paid what they're worth leaving only terrible or old teachers. 2) Pay teachers more. I hate the term, if you can't do, teach. There are so many who can do quite well but can't teach for shit. Teaching is an incredibly difficult (and important job) to do well and the amount of money we pay (good) teachers is just not enough to attract the kind of intellect required for a good education system. We pay so much per student in the US yet still get such poor outcomes, there are definitely places where funding can be cut to pay for better teachers. 3) My mother is an accounting supervisor for a school district in CA. The one thing that is absolutely absurd with draining money is taking care of mentally retarded kids. One ridiculous example, a mom has this kind with autism and this kid basically can't interact with anyone because he has gotten violent with other kids in the past. The district's solution is to send him to a special school in Florida where he is taken care of 1 on 1. The cost is astronomical, ~20k a month. For ONE kid. There is no single criminal in this situation, its just that the system is fucked up. The mom can't stay home to take care of the kid and earn an income, the school is legally obligated to the kids care during school hours, and the kid can't be at a normal school. Of course this is just one example but the system is fucked. Kids who have no business being in special ed get thrown in when they shouldn't be and kids who will never learn anything are given a dumbed down version of the normal curriculum, as if that will help them in life. I have no solutions here, the problems are myriad and manifold, but someone needs to at least acknowledge that special ed needs a ton of work. 4) Stop treating everyone the same. Seriously. Not everyone needs to go to college. That doesn't mean you don't need to be educated but that there are many technical jobs that pay well and are needed in our society. We can learn about how to do this from countries in Europe. In Switzerland for example, people can choose whether or not they wish to continue an academic career to college or enter a vocational school after which they are linked up with local businesses. The obsession in the US with delaying making any sort of career choice until the last second really hurts most people as they're forced to learn stuff that they don't care about, won't use, and isn't helpful to them in gaining employment. For those who are aiming to be well educated in general, this system works okay but classes are pulled down by those who don't care, harming both types of students. A number of experimental vocational schools have popped up but its in no way a common thing yet. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Prepping for Obamacare, Chain Cuts Workers' Hours The owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants is putting more workers on part-time status in a test aimed at limiting the impact of looming health coverage requirements. Darden Restaurants declined to give details but said the test is only in restaurants in four markets across the country. The test entails increasing the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week. Under the new health care act, companies will be required to provide health care to full-time employees by 2014. That would significantly boost labor costs for businesses. About 75 percent of Darden's employees are currently part-timers. Bob McAdam, who heads government affairs and community relations for Darden, said the company is still learning from the tests, which was first reported by The Orlando Sentinel. "We're not at a point where we have results," he said. McAdam also noted that Darden is not alone in looking at ways to keep labor costs in check, with companies industry wide prepping for the new regulations to take effect. Darden, based in Orlando, Fla., has made cost cutting a priority in recent years as sales growth and traffic have stalled at its flagship chains. In the most recent fiscal quarter, the company's restaurant labor costs were 31 percent of sales. That's down from 33 percent three years ago. The reduction was driven by several factors. Given the challenging job market, Darden has been able to offer lower pay rates to new hires. Bonuses for general managers have been reduced as sales have stagnated. Servers at Red Lobster are handling four tables at a time, instead of three. And last year, the company also put workers on a "tip sharing" program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower "tip credit wage" of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Darden isn't the only restaurant chain looking at managing labor costs. This summer, McDonald's Chief Financial Officer Peter Bensen noted in a conference call with investors that the fast food company was looking at the many factors that will impact health care costs, including the number of full-time employees. Darden operates more than 2,000 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, including its LongHorn Steakhouse. It employs about 180,000 people. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 10 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's a little loose of a term, but not as loose as you suggest. Wiki actually does a decent job of summing up liberalism. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property. Classical liberals simply tend to favor capitalism as a means to these ends, while modern liberals (in the American sense) lean towards a socialist or more mixed economy. It's important to note that "equality" in the sense of classical liberalism meant "equality under the law," in which the law treats everyone equally, not equality in terms of economics in which the law must treat different groups differently in order to achieve results. the idea is that classical liberalism evolved over time as people observed either flaws in the seeming all encompassing ideal of property, or in response to new social situations. famous examples are JS Mill separating personal and economic liberty, hayek recognizing a social minimum, etc. when key liberal thinkers themselves can inject new material into the scope and content of liberty, without rejecting the whole concept altogether, it is silly to insist that your liberalism is the right one. it seems far more sensible to think of these thinkers not as self enforcing ideologues, but as simply social thinkers who happened to like some ideas, maybe even organize their systems around the idea of liberty. however, the liberty question does not override the scope of their social theory. they are in the end trying to improve society. guys i'm comfortable calling classical liberals are people who really made a big deal about the cleanliness of negative liberty, the isaiah berlins of the world. in other words, the guys who raised this distinction in the first place. the american version of liberalism did in fact evolve in response to new social conditions. i think they should also be able to lay claim to a heritage of liberty as it is best understood, a mixture of the recognition of liberty alongside clear realism with respect to the actual living conditions that enable liberty. classical liberals do not favor capitalism per se. capitalism is defined and understood in a context of power. i.e. who controls the productive capitals in society. this question is entirely novel to classical liberalism which is an insistence on the clean logic of property rights. it may defend the same things in a particular world, but the preferred term for classical liberalism is free contracts/markets, and it is in this sense capitalism agnostic. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 1493FunKaTv   646IndyStarCraft  369SteadfastSC  308UpATreeSC 175BRAT_OK  148PiGStarcraft132 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g9121 Grubby7524 FrodaN1942 Livibee594 B2W.Neo481 elazer474 shahzam363 syndereN317 Pyrionflax255 KnowMe114 Trikslyr73 ToD59 ZombieGrub36 trigger2 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
