|
On April 27 2009 12:16 Railxp wrote:
Undeniably, China is filled with propaganda, but at the very least it doesn't try very hard to hide it, and more importantly, it doesn't claim to be the Land of the Free.
Dude... nobody listens to cable news. When I want to learn about current events I google the issue, and click three independent journalism sources and edit their articles of opinions and language bias (makes for short reading  ); all of which I can do because I have unrestricted internet access (eye for an eye). The media is just as free as the people to put whatever spin they want on a story, its the land of the free. What makes it work is everybody has the opportunity to check a multitude of sources and construct their own versions of events. Final point, when the Chinese admit that girl in the Olympics was 13 I'll proclaim them the more ethical lairs...
|
On April 28 2009 05:31 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 12:16 Railxp wrote:
Undeniably, China is filled with propaganda, but at the very least it doesn't try very hard to hide it, and more importantly, it doesn't claim to be the Land of the Free.
Dude... nobody listens to cable news. When I want to learn about current events I google the issue, and click three independent journalism sources and edit their articles of opinions and language bias (makes for short reading ); all of which I can do because I have unrestricted internet access (eye for an eye). The media is just as free as the people to put whatever spin they want on a story, its the land of the free. What makes it work is everybody has the opportunity to check a multitude of sources and construct their own versions of events. Final point, when the Chinese admit that girl in the Olympics was 13 I'll proclaim them the more ethical lairs...
funny!
|
On April 28 2009 05:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
ahahahahahahh What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job? Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_> Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off. meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare Why should I have to pay for someone's welfare because they lost they're job and home? I know it helps people less fortunate but there isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world. People should be able to keep what they earn and i always give back. And there certainly isn't a surplus of jobs right now. The Federal government is printing money out of thin air, it is basically counterfeit. The dollar is going to crash if this keeps up, or its going to screw over countries like China who are heavily in ivested in the U.S. dollar. Why should you not? Are you that selfish? Don't you care of people, only yourself and maybe your family and friends? Have you ever done any charity or even thought about it? Do you think its they are poor? And how did you expect them to get away from being poor if they aren't given money? And hwere else could government get the money if not from taxes? Also you would be paying your own healthcare, schools, school food(thats also free here :>) And everyone else would too. i mean, one for all, all for one. Except the poor-asses can't really pay much taxes because tehy are fucking poor. ALERT: Godwin's Law [[ In a slightly amusing form ]]: Read what the dude from finald wrote. Yeah for selflessness right? Or at least, we must tame the rabid, individualist ego for the sake of the poor and crippled! Or, as a noble man once said, "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparions with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -Adolf Hitler "Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." --Benito Mussolini We must let the europeans continue preaching their collectivism. But this time, with an important difference -- this time the United States shouldn't send millions of its own to face death to save a savage continent which, from the looks of things, will never learn. To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. Railz, note that in your reply you think of things in terms of "bring[ing] a third world nation back to being a super power in a s[h]ort time frame" -- Precisely my point. You don't see individuals -- you see the state. While you presently may shun from the overt use of violence to achieve your concept of noble ends, your answer reveals to me that you are just another thug trying to rule the strongest gang.
I'm a staunch defender of individuals - that includes those better off taking care of those below them. My reply was merely against twisting Hitler as if his views of how to rule brought Germany to ruin. I care not for the size of the state or the power of its projection, merely who can say they live a good life. If I can find a homeless man in my county I am unhappy. Me saying Hitler could rule very well shouldn't be taken out of context, because I also think that Stalin was a fucking moron as a ruler or anything else.
|
On April 28 2009 05:20 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:
To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. It is what the German government stopped doing that brought Germany's economy back. They stopped printing money, shored up their taxes to cover their all their spending, and got people to work again (instead of subsidizing striking workers.) I'm not sure that the US nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution instead of the state. There would have to be a lot more federalism if US nationalistic pride were to place in the Constitution instead of the state. The US federal government has already redefined freedom to allow for their abuse of the citizenry.
You need a leader to be able to say that he is ready to relinquish economic power, which is how I was refering to Hitler's party at the start.
Its hard to describe one way or the other. We show constant dismay with our federal government - which for all intents and purposes can be considered the one State of the united states. On the other hand, people will defend the constitution, if not every law, at least what it represents. A lot of people also have have a lot of pride in their own state; as in one of the 50 states, but I wouldn't say that is a negative trait, because each individual state generally defines a person (and if it doesn't, most people will openly resent it).
|
Wtf people are talking about Hitler. I'm lost here o,o
|
On April 28 2009 05:35 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
ahahahahahahh What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job? Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_> Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off. meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare Why should I have to pay for someone's welfare because they lost they're job and home? I know it helps people less fortunate but there isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world. People should be able to keep what they earn and i always give back. And there certainly isn't a surplus of jobs right now. The Federal government is printing money out of thin air, it is basically counterfeit. The dollar is going to crash if this keeps up, or its going to screw over countries like China who are heavily in ivested in the U.S. dollar. Why should you not? Are you that selfish? Don't you care of people, only yourself and maybe your family and friends? Have you ever done any charity or even thought about it? Do you think its they are poor? And how did you expect them to get away from being poor if they aren't given money? And hwere else could government get the money if not from taxes? Also you would be paying your own healthcare, schools, school food(thats also free here :>) And everyone else would too. i mean, one for all, all for one. Except the poor-asses can't really pay much taxes because tehy are fucking poor. ALERT: Godwin's Law [[ In a slightly amusing form ]]: Read what the dude from finald wrote. Yeah for selflessness right? Or at least, we must tame the rabid, individualist ego for the sake of the poor and crippled! Or, as a noble man once said, "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparions with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -Adolf Hitler "Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." --Benito Mussolini We must let the europeans continue preaching their collectivism. But this time, with an important difference -- this time the United States shouldn't send millions of its own to face death to save a savage continent which, from the looks of things, will never learn. To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. Railz, note that in your reply you think of things in terms of "bring[ing] a third world nation back to being a super power in a s[h]ort time frame" -- Precisely my point. You don't see individuals -- you see the state. While you presently may shun from the overt use of violence to achieve your concept of noble ends, your answer reveals to me that you are just another thug trying to rule the strongest gang. I'm a staunch defender of individuals - that includes those better off taking care of those below them. My reply was merely against twisting Hitler as if his views of how to rule brought Germany to ruin. I care not for the size of the state or the power of its projection, merely who can say they live a good life. If I can find a homeless man in my county I am unhappy. Me saying Hitler could rule very well shouldn't be taken out of context, because I also think that Stalin was a fucking moron as a ruler or anything else.
Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism as well as his nationalism // militarism. Soviet Russia is an excellent example of that and you seem to agree.
As far as the homeless man is concerned. 1) Stop posting on this forum, go sell your computer and give him some fucking bread. 2) Your language is telling: You see a homeless person and you get unhappy, then you like to force me to do what you want.
|
On April 28 2009 05:40 Boblion wrote:
Wtf people are talking about Hitler. I'm lost here o,o
DUDE! I posted Godwin's Law long ago!
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 05:14 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +
The basis for Western Civilization is Liberalism - free speech, free press, free religion, contract law, low taxes. The people studied the democracy of Athens and thought it a horrible system of government.
The development of the 20th century is reverting to social democracy. And just like in Athens, it is heading towards disaster.
Your understanding of history is lacking, and your vauge threat of looming disaster makes me feel like im watching fox. Please elaborate on your post, esp the liberalism part. Just seems that there are some idiotsin thread who believe the poor want to be/choose to be/deserve to be poor. Some of these people honestly belief that the individual is so powerfull it can overcome any obstacle such as illness, low SES or lack of education , which is laughable but typically american.
Wow, nice edukashun you have there. Nice to have someone call other people idiots.
There is no choice to be poor and there are some innate disadvantages and advantages that various people in society will have. There is no way people will overcome mental illness, debilitating physical illness, etc. Nothing will prevent these people from being poor. While these people deserve compassion, social welfare entitlements cover a much larger population. The large majority of the beneficiaries don't deserve compassion. There are huge disconnects between the beneficiaries in a rhetorical argument and actual beneficiaries under government policy.
The poor design of social welfare entitlements also undermine the virtue of making the most out of a situation. The tax system then undermine of private compassion through charitable giving. Before the involvement of the Federal Government, America has always had a good reward system for outstanding economic actions and protection against disastrous economic failure. It was highly distributed and decentralized..
Today with the Federal government in control, the reward system for outstanding achievement has been undermined and the protection against economic failure promotes sloth. Should the Federal government ever be faced with the reality that it can't pay for all of its commitments, the centralization promotes systemic failure. It's merely a projection, but the total unfunded liability for Medicare, SS, and pensions is now up to 100 trillion.
|
On April 28 2009 05:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:35 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 05:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
ahahahahahahh What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job? Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_> Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off. meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare Why should I have to pay for someone's welfare because they lost they're job and home? I know it helps people less fortunate but there isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world. People should be able to keep what they earn and i always give back. And there certainly isn't a surplus of jobs right now. The Federal government is printing money out of thin air, it is basically counterfeit. The dollar is going to crash if this keeps up, or its going to screw over countries like China who are heavily in ivested in the U.S. dollar. Why should you not? Are you that selfish? Don't you care of people, only yourself and maybe your family and friends? Have you ever done any charity or even thought about it? Do you think its they are poor? And how did you expect them to get away from being poor if they aren't given money? And hwere else could government get the money if not from taxes? Also you would be paying your own healthcare, schools, school food(thats also free here :>) And everyone else would too. i mean, one for all, all for one. Except the poor-asses can't really pay much taxes because tehy are fucking poor. ALERT: Godwin's Law [[ In a slightly amusing form ]]: Read what the dude from finald wrote. Yeah for selflessness right? Or at least, we must tame the rabid, individualist ego for the sake of the poor and crippled! Or, as a noble man once said, "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparions with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -Adolf Hitler "Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." --Benito Mussolini We must let the europeans continue preaching their collectivism. But this time, with an important difference -- this time the United States shouldn't send millions of its own to face death to save a savage continent which, from the looks of things, will never learn. To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. Railz, note that in your reply you think of things in terms of "bring[ing] a third world nation back to being a super power in a s[h]ort time frame" -- Precisely my point. You don't see individuals -- you see the state. While you presently may shun from the overt use of violence to achieve your concept of noble ends, your answer reveals to me that you are just another thug trying to rule the strongest gang. I'm a staunch defender of individuals - that includes those better off taking care of those below them. My reply was merely against twisting Hitler as if his views of how to rule brought Germany to ruin. I care not for the size of the state or the power of its projection, merely who can say they live a good life. If I can find a homeless man in my county I am unhappy. Me saying Hitler could rule very well shouldn't be taken out of context, because I also think that Stalin was a fucking moron as a ruler or anything else. Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism as well as his nationalism // militarism. Soviet Russia is an excellent example of that and you seem to agree. As far as the homeless man is concerned. 1) Stop posting on this forum, go sell your computer and give him some fucking bread. 2) Your language is telling: You see a homeless person and you get unhappy, then you like to force me to do what you want.
It's really hard to say Soviet Russia is a great example of Hitler's Germany, when they had 2 very different social view and economic issues. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion other then saying they were both Militaristic. Every state had nationalism post and pre WWI so thats pretty much not note-worthy.
I give money to homeless people, so you're a bad judge of character right off the bat. Second, I haven't told you what you should think or do merely defending my stance on those around me. You're being quite defensive about pretty minute details which does speak about you though.
|
On April 28 2009 05:48 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:14 AdamBanks wrote:
The basis for Western Civilization is Liberalism - free speech, free press, free religion, contract law, low taxes. The people studied the democracy of Athens and thought it a horrible system of government.
The development of the 20th century is reverting to social democracy. And just like in Athens, it is heading towards disaster.
Your understanding of history is lacking, and your vauge threat of looming disaster makes me feel like im watching fox. Please elaborate on your post, esp the liberalism part. Just seems that there are some idiotsin thread who believe the poor want to be/choose to be/deserve to be poor. Some of these people honestly belief that the individual is so powerfull it can overcome any obstacle such as illness, low SES or lack of education , which is laughable but typically american. Wow, nice edukashun you have there. Nice to have someone call other people idiots. There is no choice to be poor and there are some innate disadvantages and advantages that various people in society will have. There is no way people will overcome mental illness, debilitating physical illness, etc. Nothing will prevent these people from being poor. While these people deserve compassion, social welfare entitlements cover a much larger population. The large majority of the beneficiaries don't deserve compassion. There are huge disconnects between the beneficiaries in a rhetorical argument and actual beneficiaries under government policy. The poor design of social welfare entitlements also undermine the virtue of making the most out of a situation. The tax system then undermine of private compassion through charitable giving. Before the involvement of the Federal Government, America has always had a good reward system for outstanding economic system and protection against disastrous economic failure. It was highly distributed and decentralized.. Today with the Federal government in control, the reward system for outstanding achievement has been undermined and the protection against economic failure promotes sloth. Should the Federal government ever be faced with the reality that it can't pay for all of its commitments, the centralization promotes systemic failure. It's merely a projection, but the total unfunded liability for Medicare, SS, and pensions is now up to 100 trillion.
[sic] "The reward system for outstanding achievement has been undermined... "
Not quite - those higher ups make more more then they ever did and the laborers, are making less then they ever have.
[sic] Before the involvement of the Federal Government..." How long ago are you speaking, because it has to be pre-Wilson, otherwise you're just speaking off opinion. Its hard to argue someone who can provide dates, because pre-WWI, there was little to no involvement, directly before the depression. Right during the depression, and during WWII there was a ton of involvement. During the cold war there become a centralization of sorts as cities began to globalize and corporations had to be checked. It was only from 80s onward to 08 that there was little to no regulation at all.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 05:55 Railz wrote:
[sic] "The reward system for outstanding achievement has been undermined... "
Not quite - those higher ups make more more then they ever did and the laborers, are making less then they ever have.
This is an example of gaming Wall Street and manipulating laws. A balanced rewards system no longer applies.
On April 28 2009 05:55 Railz wrote:
[sic] Before the involvement of the Federal Government..." How long ago are you speaking, because it has to be pre-Wilson, otherwise you're just speaking off opinion. Its hard to argue someone who can provide dates, because pre-WWI, there was little to no involvement, directly before the depression. Right during the depression, and during WWII there was a ton of involvement. During the cold war there become a centralization of sorts as cities began to globalize and corporations had to be checked. It was only from 80s onward to 08 that there was little to no regulation at all.
Before McKinley and also pre-Wilson. World War I gave US a planned economy during the war. The Great Depression gave another planned economy during peace time. World War II gave another planned economy, but the most benign of the three. During the Cold War, the Military Industrial Complex went on the rise.
After 80's there was plenty of regulation. You only need to read the federal register to find the amount of federal regulation that were in effect. Instead, the big corporate oligarchs were in control and gamed the regulation system to their benefit - leading to the illusion of lack of regulation. If you had connections at the regulatory agencies, you could sail through the red tape. Everyone else had to suffer. Basically, the corporations used the tools that their enemies had put into place for their own benefit.
|
why are people from usa so obssessed with propaganda? i'd understand this 60 years ago but propaganda seems like a tiny issue in usa these days, especially with the examples of it presented in this thread.
edit: lmao i think it might be because of propaganda.
|
On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 04:11 only_human89 wrote:
jibbajibbajibbadurdurrdurrrrjibjibjib
The basis of a modern, western civilization is social democracy. Yes, social. The same beginning as in socialism. Socialism is there to account for the fact that every person has equal possibilities in life disregarding what happened before they were born, or were able to affect their situation themselves. Its aim is to get the Government to provide basic infrastructure for everyone. The main points of emphasis of this infrastructure are: -Healthcare for everyone. (hospitals, hygienic, nutrition, water, residence, etc for everyone) -Logistics (roads, railways, electricity, communication networks, etc) -Education (free education for everyone, disregarding socioeconomic status) None of the aformenetioned points should be unavailable for anyone in a civilized country. The aim for taxes is to maintain this for everyone in the future as well. The aim of progressive taxing is to make this fair and to reduce the gaps between socioeconomic classes. The aim of high inheritance tax (usually prevalent in systems which apply socialdemocracy) is that you don't want to stockpile fortune to one family, but rather spread it for future generations. IIRC Warren Buffet once said that removing inheritance tax is equivalent of letting the children of ex Olympic Winners compete against eachother after their parents have died, instead of choosing those who are best in their trade to compete against eachother. So in short, the social aspects provide the basic infrastructure on top of which free, service based trade is built upon. It makes the country better as a whole. Then on top of that you have Democracy. The people have the way to effect the decisions of the Government, and to decide where the tax money is going. This is not possible with totalitarist two party systems, but requires the participation of several parties in order to represent the public's multitude of views properly. Puuh, I don't have time to finish this essay, but in short Human89 -- open your eyes, read more, rip apart the paper bag and see the real world. I might some day finish this essay regarding the dreaded 'socialism' you're so afraid of.
Everything you say sounds great on paper doesn't it? Too bad it doesn't work as well as it sounds in practice. So I don't know what you think your doing by qouting some book you probably read. We already know what socialism stands for and tries to accomplish. Maybe Europeans are content to live with it(which is fine with me that is none of my buisness) but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So you whip out any history book you want and try to disprove that. I dont need the government telling me i have to help someone, i help people when they ask for my help. Which is why socialism will always be fundametly flawed in my opinion because people and governments will never always agree. The U.S. Constitution was designed to solve this very problem by giving the indivdual state more freedom. Which i think in practice works best because people are not robots and we will ALWAYS disagree So you can choose to move to the state that best suits your needs. If the U.S. stopped becoming involved in foreign affairs and focus more on domestic issues my country would be pretty close to as good as it can get. But nope that's what socialism does it drags you into everyone elses problems and causes to much collateral build up after a while. And what's more is it leaves the U.S. succeptible to world opinion because we can never please everyone. Don't pretend to sound intelligent becase as it is you can't even qoute me properly to have a real conversation. You sir are a chump.
|
So only_human, what you are saying is basically that socialism works except in places like the US where the mindset is completely against it ?
|
On April 28 2009 06:46 stroggos wrote:
why are people from usa so obssessed with propaganda? i'd understand this 60 years ago but propaganda seems like a tiny issue in usa these days, especially with the examples of it presented in this thread.
edit: lmao i think it might be because of propaganda.
Well I think the initial point of the thread was to try and compare USA and China media, but it got derailed pretty quick. That being said, there isn't so much propaganda in the USA as their is influence. Propaganda usually implies one voice.
|
On April 28 2009 06:59 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:On April 28 2009 04:11 only_human89 wrote:
jibbajibbajibbadurdurrdurrrrjibjibjib
The basis of a modern, western civilization is social democracy. Yes, social. The same beginning as in socialism. Socialism is there to account for the fact that every person has equal possibilities in life disregarding what happened before they were born, or were able to affect their situation themselves. Its aim is to get the Government to provide basic infrastructure for everyone. The main points of emphasis of this infrastructure are: -Healthcare for everyone. (hospitals, hygienic, nutrition, water, residence, etc for everyone) -Logistics (roads, railways, electricity, communication networks, etc) -Education (free education for everyone, disregarding socioeconomic status) None of the aformenetioned points should be unavailable for anyone in a civilized country. The aim for taxes is to maintain this for everyone in the future as well. The aim of progressive taxing is to make this fair and to reduce the gaps between socioeconomic classes. The aim of high inheritance tax (usually prevalent in systems which apply socialdemocracy) is that you don't want to stockpile fortune to one family, but rather spread it for future generations. IIRC Warren Buffet once said that removing inheritance tax is equivalent of letting the children of ex Olympic Winners compete against eachother after their parents have died, instead of choosing those who are best in their trade to compete against eachother. So in short, the social aspects provide the basic infrastructure on top of which free, service based trade is built upon. It makes the country better as a whole. Then on top of that you have Democracy. The people have the way to effect the decisions of the Government, and to decide where the tax money is going. This is not possible with totalitarist two party systems, but requires the participation of several parties in order to represent the public's multitude of views properly. Puuh, I don't have time to finish this essay, but in short Human89 -- open your eyes, read more, rip apart the paper bag and see the real world. I might some day finish this essay regarding the dreaded 'socialism' you're so afraid of. Everything you say sounds great on paper doesn't it? Too bad it doesn't work as well as it sounds in practice. So I don't know what you think your doing by qouting some book you probably read. We already know what socialism stands for and tries to accomplish. Maybe Europeans are content to live with it(which is fine with me that is none of my buisness) but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So you whip out any history book you want and try to disprove that. I dont need the government telling me i have to help someone, i help people when they ask for my help. Which is why socialism will always be fundametly flawed in my opinion because people and governments will never always agree. The U.S. Constitution was designed to solve this very problem by giving the indivdual state more freedom. Which i think in practice works best because people are not robots and we will ALWAYS disagree So you can choose to move to the state that best suits your needs. If the U.S. stopped becoming involved in foreign affairs and focus more on domestic issues my country would be pretty close to as good as it can get. But nope that's what socialism does it drags you into everyone elses problems and causes to much collateral build up after a while. And what's more is it leaves the U.S. succeptible to world opinion because we can never please everyone. Don't pretend to sound intelligent becase as it is you can't even qoute me properly to have a real conversation. You sir are a chump.
"but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. "
Haha. What. Good standard of living, yes, best? Not really. The slums and poverty tracts in here are some of the highest in the developed countries.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 28 2009 05:49 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:35 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 05:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
ahahahahahahh What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job? Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_> Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off. meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare Why should I have to pay for someone's welfare because they lost they're job and home? I know it helps people less fortunate but there isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world. People should be able to keep what they earn and i always give back. And there certainly isn't a surplus of jobs right now. The Federal government is printing money out of thin air, it is basically counterfeit. The dollar is going to crash if this keeps up, or its going to screw over countries like China who are heavily in ivested in the U.S. dollar. Why should you not? Are you that selfish? Don't you care of people, only yourself and maybe your family and friends? Have you ever done any charity or even thought about it? Do you think its they are poor? And how did you expect them to get away from being poor if they aren't given money? And hwere else could government get the money if not from taxes? Also you would be paying your own healthcare, schools, school food(thats also free here :>) And everyone else would too. i mean, one for all, all for one. Except the poor-asses can't really pay much taxes because tehy are fucking poor. ALERT: Godwin's Law [[ In a slightly amusing form ]]: Read what the dude from finald wrote. Yeah for selflessness right? Or at least, we must tame the rabid, individualist ego for the sake of the poor and crippled! Or, as a noble man once said, "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparions with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -Adolf Hitler "Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." --Benito Mussolini We must let the europeans continue preaching their collectivism. But this time, with an important difference -- this time the United States shouldn't send millions of its own to face death to save a savage continent which, from the looks of things, will never learn. To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. Railz, note that in your reply you think of things in terms of "bring[ing] a third world nation back to being a super power in a s[h]ort time frame" -- Precisely my point. You don't see individuals -- you see the state. While you presently may shun from the overt use of violence to achieve your concept of noble ends, your answer reveals to me that you are just another thug trying to rule the strongest gang. I'm a staunch defender of individuals - that includes those better off taking care of those below them. My reply was merely against twisting Hitler as if his views of how to rule brought Germany to ruin. I care not for the size of the state or the power of its projection, merely who can say they live a good life. If I can find a homeless man in my county I am unhappy. Me saying Hitler could rule very well shouldn't be taken out of context, because I also think that Stalin was a fucking moron as a ruler or anything else. Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism as well as his nationalism // militarism. Soviet Russia is an excellent example of that and you seem to agree. As far as the homeless man is concerned. 1) Stop posting on this forum, go sell your computer and give him some fucking bread. 2) Your language is telling: You see a homeless person and you get unhappy, then you like to force me to do what you want. It's really hard to say Soviet Russia is a great example of Hitler's Germany, when they had 2 very different social view and economic issues. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion other then saying they were both Militaristic. Every state had nationalism post and pre WWI so thats pretty much not note-worthy.
They were similar in the essential respects...
And to the guy who said Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism and militarism, what planet is he on? Hitler enjoyed the tremendous success that he did precisely BECAUSE of collectivism and militarism. He had Germans worked up in a frenzy, ready to make any sacrifice for their fuhrer. His failure was simply due to the fact that he was finally crushed by overwhelming material superiority.
|
On April 28 2009 07:13 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 06:59 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:On April 28 2009 04:11 only_human89 wrote:
jibbajibbajibbadurdurrdurrrrjibjibjib
The basis of a modern, western civilization is social democracy. Yes, social. The same beginning as in socialism. Socialism is there to account for the fact that every person has equal possibilities in life disregarding what happened before they were born, or were able to affect their situation themselves. Its aim is to get the Government to provide basic infrastructure for everyone. The main points of emphasis of this infrastructure are: -Healthcare for everyone. (hospitals, hygienic, nutrition, water, residence, etc for everyone) -Logistics (roads, railways, electricity, communication networks, etc) -Education (free education for everyone, disregarding socioeconomic status) None of the aformenetioned points should be unavailable for anyone in a civilized country. The aim for taxes is to maintain this for everyone in the future as well. The aim of progressive taxing is to make this fair and to reduce the gaps between socioeconomic classes. The aim of high inheritance tax (usually prevalent in systems which apply socialdemocracy) is that you don't want to stockpile fortune to one family, but rather spread it for future generations. IIRC Warren Buffet once said that removing inheritance tax is equivalent of letting the children of ex Olympic Winners compete against eachother after their parents have died, instead of choosing those who are best in their trade to compete against eachother. So in short, the social aspects provide the basic infrastructure on top of which free, service based trade is built upon. It makes the country better as a whole. Then on top of that you have Democracy. The people have the way to effect the decisions of the Government, and to decide where the tax money is going. This is not possible with totalitarist two party systems, but requires the participation of several parties in order to represent the public's multitude of views properly. Puuh, I don't have time to finish this essay, but in short Human89 -- open your eyes, read more, rip apart the paper bag and see the real world. I might some day finish this essay regarding the dreaded 'socialism' you're so afraid of. Everything you say sounds great on paper doesn't it? Too bad it doesn't work as well as it sounds in practice. So I don't know what you think your doing by qouting some book you probably read. We already know what socialism stands for and tries to accomplish. Maybe Europeans are content to live with it(which is fine with me that is none of my buisness) but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So you whip out any history book you want and try to disprove that. I dont need the government telling me i have to help someone, i help people when they ask for my help. Which is why socialism will always be fundametly flawed in my opinion because people and governments will never always agree. The U.S. Constitution was designed to solve this very problem by giving the indivdual state more freedom. Which i think in practice works best because people are not robots and we will ALWAYS disagree So you can choose to move to the state that best suits your needs. If the U.S. stopped becoming involved in foreign affairs and focus more on domestic issues my country would be pretty close to as good as it can get. But nope that's what socialism does it drags you into everyone elses problems and causes to much collateral build up after a while. And what's more is it leaves the U.S. succeptible to world opinion because we can never please everyone. Don't pretend to sound intelligent becase as it is you can't even qoute me properly to have a real conversation. You sir are a chump. "but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. " Haha. What. Good standard of living, yes, best? Not really. The slums and poverty tracts in here are some of the highest in the developed countries.
indeed sir, but i mean are regular standards of living are higher. and there doesn't have to be any people living in poverty here if the gov would spend the money. But no they would rather send it overseas instead of fix all the domestic issues we have. i dont know why amercans are not as angry about this as they should be. too much ignorance i suppose, they have to see to believe.
|
On April 28 2009 07:27 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:49 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 05:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:35 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 05:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:
[quote]
ahahahahahahh
What if you suddenly lost your job and home and shit? Would you just go live in the street if you wouldn't get another job?
Socialism is fair. Without any socialism, it would be shit <_>
Have fun if you get sick in your country. go and pay your ass off.
meanwhile i enjoy my free healthcare Why should I have to pay for someone's welfare because they lost they're job and home? I know it helps people less fortunate but there isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world. People should be able to keep what they earn and i always give back. And there certainly isn't a surplus of jobs right now. The Federal government is printing money out of thin air, it is basically counterfeit. The dollar is going to crash if this keeps up, or its going to screw over countries like China who are heavily in ivested in the U.S. dollar. Why should you not? Are you that selfish? Don't you care of people, only yourself and maybe your family and friends? Have you ever done any charity or even thought about it? Do you think its they are poor? And how did you expect them to get away from being poor if they aren't given money? And hwere else could government get the money if not from taxes? Also you would be paying your own healthcare, schools, school food(thats also free here :>) And everyone else would too. i mean, one for all, all for one. Except the poor-asses can't really pay much taxes because tehy are fucking poor. ALERT: Godwin's Law [[ In a slightly amusing form ]]: Read what the dude from finald wrote. Yeah for selflessness right? Or at least, we must tame the rabid, individualist ego for the sake of the poor and crippled! Or, as a noble man once said, "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparions with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture...The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -Adolf Hitler "Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." --Benito Mussolini We must let the europeans continue preaching their collectivism. But this time, with an important difference -- this time the United States shouldn't send millions of its own to face death to save a savage continent which, from the looks of things, will never learn. To be completely fair and honest - Hitler managed to bring a near third world nation back to being a super power in a sort time frame - what he did after was his own doing. You could say that it was because of government spending on the military, but that would be reinforcing what the United States has already been doing. The difference between the United States and 1940 Germany is our nationalistic pride rests on the Constitution, not the state. Railz, note that in your reply you think of things in terms of "bring[ing] a third world nation back to being a super power in a s[h]ort time frame" -- Precisely my point. You don't see individuals -- you see the state. While you presently may shun from the overt use of violence to achieve your concept of noble ends, your answer reveals to me that you are just another thug trying to rule the strongest gang. I'm a staunch defender of individuals - that includes those better off taking care of those below them. My reply was merely against twisting Hitler as if his views of how to rule brought Germany to ruin. I care not for the size of the state or the power of its projection, merely who can say they live a good life. If I can find a homeless man in my county I am unhappy. Me saying Hitler could rule very well shouldn't be taken out of context, because I also think that Stalin was a fucking moron as a ruler or anything else. Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism as well as his nationalism // militarism. Soviet Russia is an excellent example of that and you seem to agree. As far as the homeless man is concerned. 1) Stop posting on this forum, go sell your computer and give him some fucking bread. 2) Your language is telling: You see a homeless person and you get unhappy, then you like to force me to do what you want. It's really hard to say Soviet Russia is a great example of Hitler's Germany, when they had 2 very different social view and economic issues. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion other then saying they were both Militaristic. Every state had nationalism post and pre WWI so thats pretty much not note-worthy. They were similar in the essential respects... And to the guy who said Hitler's failure was due to his collectivism and militarism, what planet is he on? Hitler enjoyed the tremendous success that he did precisely BECAUSE of collectivism and militarism. He had Germans worked up in a frenzy, ready to make any sacrifice for their fuhrer. His failure was simply due to the fact that he was finally crushed by overwhelming material superiority.
Eh, Nationalism/Militarism sure, but where one pledged collectivism based off pride of German people, the other made the people pledge their cities towards a collective state. Socially, Russia didn't have a binding.
indeed sir, but i mean are regular standards of living are higher. and there doesn't have to be any people living in poverty here if the gov would spend the money. But no they would rather send it overseas instead of fix all the domestic issues we have. i dont know why amercans are not as angry about this as they should be. too much ignorance i suppose, they have to see to believe.
I'm very informed, I know we're being cheated left and right under what might as well be a one party rule, but sir, public schooling in America thrives to teach students about their respective field, not about their own surroundings and general common sense. For example I asked 2 people what would happen to a pen dropped on the moon yesterday, and both of them got it wrong. One of them extraordinarily wrong.
|
On April 28 2009 06:59 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:On April 28 2009 04:11 only_human89 wrote:
jibbajibbajibbadurdurrdurrrrjibjibjib
The basis of a modern, western civilization is social democracy. Yes, social. The same beginning as in socialism. Socialism is there to account for the fact that every person has equal possibilities in life disregarding what happened before they were born, or were able to affect their situation themselves. Its aim is to get the Government to provide basic infrastructure for everyone. The main points of emphasis of this infrastructure are: -Healthcare for everyone. (hospitals, hygienic, nutrition, water, residence, etc for everyone) -Logistics (roads, railways, electricity, communication networks, etc) -Education (free education for everyone, disregarding socioeconomic status) None of the aformenetioned points should be unavailable for anyone in a civilized country. The aim for taxes is to maintain this for everyone in the future as well. The aim of progressive taxing is to make this fair and to reduce the gaps between socioeconomic classes. The aim of high inheritance tax (usually prevalent in systems which apply socialdemocracy) is that you don't want to stockpile fortune to one family, but rather spread it for future generations. IIRC Warren Buffet once said that removing inheritance tax is equivalent of letting the children of ex Olympic Winners compete against eachother after their parents have died, instead of choosing those who are best in their trade to compete against eachother. So in short, the social aspects provide the basic infrastructure on top of which free, service based trade is built upon. It makes the country better as a whole. Then on top of that you have Democracy. The people have the way to effect the decisions of the Government, and to decide where the tax money is going. This is not possible with totalitarist two party systems, but requires the participation of several parties in order to represent the public's multitude of views properly. Puuh, I don't have time to finish this essay, but in short Human89 -- open your eyes, read more, rip apart the paper bag and see the real world. I might some day finish this essay regarding the dreaded 'socialism' you're so afraid of. Everything you say sounds great on paper doesn't it? Too bad it doesn't work as well as it sounds in practice. So I don't know what you think your doing by qouting some book you probably read. We already know what socialism stands for and tries to accomplish. Maybe Europeans are content to live with it(which is fine with me that is none of my buisness) but I live in a country that has seen the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So you whip out any history book you want and try to disprove that. I dont need the government telling me i have to help someone, i help people when they ask for my help. Which is why socialism will always be fundametly flawed in my opinion because people and governments will never always agree. The U.S. Constitution was designed to solve this very problem by giving the indivdual state more freedom. Which i think in practice works best because people are not robots and we will ALWAYS disagree So you can choose to move to the state that best suits your needs. If the U.S. stopped becoming involved in foreign affairs and focus more on domestic issues my country would be pretty close to as good as it can get. But nope that's what socialism does it drags you into everyone elses problems and causes to much collateral build up after a while. And what's more is it leaves the U.S. succeptible to world opinion because we can never please everyone. Don't pretend to sound intelligent becase as it is you can't even qoute me properly to have a real conversation. You sir are a chump.
Sorry to break your bubble, but when I visited USA last year I saw beggars at every street corner. I saw only blacks eating at mcdonalds, I saw severe gaps in socioeconomic status within the ranks of people everywhere.
I live in Finland. Here the sons of bankers and doctors are seen working at mcdonalds (or its equivalent) in their teens. We don't have beggars at every street. The government provides the aforementioned basic infrastructure to everyone. We have been leading the PISA tests which measure the quality of education. Our innovations are world known, and we have one of the fastest growing IT businesses ever founded here (ever heard of Nokia?).
Even while free (they pay us to cover the basic needs while we study), the education provided here is world class.
What you have in USA is borderline shity when compared to 'Scandinavian' standards. And no, I don't have to quote a book to state the obvious, but I do need to break my text into paragraphs to make it readable. I suggest you do the same. I also suggest you to travel.
What I wrote above is not an Utopia, it's how things are (never perfect, naturally) in countries where the Government is set to provide ideal grounds for its citizens to flourish. Equally.
We've been going drastically to the capitalistic direction during the last few years, though, and that's not a good thing. They're already trying to get foreigners to pay to study in our Universities. But education is free, and information shouldn't have a pricetag, unless you're trying to make a profit. And a government isn't supposed to make a profit, it's supposed to provide its citizens with the best possible environment it can.
I hope that one day you look back at this thread and feel a little bit ashamed.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
