|
On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi 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. 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.
I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America.
"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."
You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? Do you even know how many roads there are in America? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in socioeconomic status, and its because of laziness. They have been made to think they can be given hand outs. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. But apperantly the area you come from people cant except each other without being told to on some level. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what have probably watched from our movies and hear from our news channels.
|
On April 28 2009 08:22 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi wrote: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. 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. I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America. "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." You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in economic status, and its because of laziness. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what you watch from our movies and hear from our news channels.
I highlighted some points that I think will illustrate the fact that you are clearly speaking out of your ass here.
|
Another thing is that korean and vietnam wars had reporters in the field and they aired the brutal shit on TV. Hell even WW1 and 2 had camera guys snapping photos all the time.
The problem with IRAQ and Afghanistan is that media companies and the gov't itself are not doing a good job reporting it with the brutal imagery like they should be. You have to actually go onto youtube or whatever and search for it yourself.
Now I'm not exactly sure why they aren't covering it (could be a conspiracy, or just that reporters are too pussy to do it, or whatever, who knows) but the fact is that they aren't and people are misinformed.
|
On April 28 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 08:22 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi wrote: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. 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. I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America. "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." You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in economic status, and its because of laziness. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what you watch from our movies and hear from our news channels. I highlighted some points that I think will illustrate the fact that you are clearly speaking out of your ass here.
I don't know what your trying to prove, I made my views clear. He made his clear. If you have a problem with my views that is completely fine but obviously i dont care. Why not tell me what you think instead. To be honest though I'm only intrested in what other Americans think. But i wouldnt stop you from sharing yours. I only had a problem with his comments about the states because they are definately not accurate.
|
On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi 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. 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.
I'm the son of a banker and I worked at McD's in my teens. We had rich folks coming by all the time there. I don't agree with human for the most part, but you either visited Tract 7 of Chicago or downtown LA.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 28 2009 07:39 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 07:27 HnR)hT wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Partly true. Soviet Russia was not nationalistic until the late 30's or so. The way I see it, Stalin transformed Soviet Communism from a utopian internationalist ideology into a vehicle for Russian nationalism and imperialism. This process was accelerated by the necesseties of WWII, when the need for effective propaganda required that the state appeal to deep rooted religious and national impulses. This is why many Russian ultra-nationalists extoll Stalin while barfing up their hatred and venom toward Communism in general.
|
On April 28 2009 08:47 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 07:39 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 07:27 HnR)hT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Partly true. Soviet Russia was not nationalistic until the late 30's or so. The way I see it, Stalin transformed Soviet Communism from a utopian internationalist ideology into a vehicle for Russian nationalism and imperialism. This process was accelerated by the necesseties of WWII, when the need for effective propaganda required that the state appeal to deep rooted religious and national impulses. This is why many Russian ultra-nationalists extoll Stalin while barfing up their hatred and venom toward Communism in general.
Which speaks wonders about how Communistic idealogies tend to create Authoritian governments.
|
edit: yeah, chicago. edited for potential flamebait.
|
On April 28 2009 08:42 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:On April 28 2009 08:22 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi wrote: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. 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. I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America. "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." You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in economic status, and its because of laziness. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what you watch from our movies and hear from our news channels. I highlighted some points that I think will illustrate the fact that you are clearly speaking out of your ass here. I don't know what your trying to prove, I made my views clear. He made his clear. If you have a problem with my views that is completely fine but obviously i dont care. Why not tell me what you think instead. To be honest though I'm only intrested in what other Americans think. But i wouldnt stop you from sharing yours. I only had a problem with his comments about the states because they are definately not accurate.
I believe in extreme relativism, there is no absolut right or wrong, I just question people until they realize that their stance to too extreme and not really well rounded, then I head somewhere else.
In this case, I think socialism is being used as a taboo word for the americans for too long, everyone wants the government level the playing field, and if we didnt then we would still be with monarchs and nobles.
In my opinion, we need a society where the sucess of the family is completely unrelated to the sucess of the individual, and for that I think free infrastructure is the way to go, theres no miracle solution, nor I think you can get it working 100% of the time.
|
On April 28 2009 09:00 Kusimuumi wrote:
edit: yeah, chicago. edited for potential flamebait.
I wasn't trying to flame you, but what you saw is an issue more on those types of city planners rather then socioeconomics of America on whole. We're a big country okay.
|
On April 28 2009 09:08 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 08:42 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:On April 28 2009 08:22 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi wrote: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. 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. I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America. "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." You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in economic status, and its because of laziness. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what you watch from our movies and hear from our news channels. I highlighted some points that I think will illustrate the fact that you are clearly speaking out of your ass here. I don't know what your trying to prove, I made my views clear. He made his clear. If you have a problem with my views that is completely fine but obviously i dont care. Why not tell me what you think instead. To be honest though I'm only intrested in what other Americans think. But i wouldnt stop you from sharing yours. I only had a problem with his comments about the states because they are definately not accurate. I believe in extreme relativism, there is no absolut right or wrong, I just question people until they realize that their stance to too extreme and not really well rounded, then I head somewhere else. In this case, I think socialism is being used as a taboo word for the americans for too long, everyone wants the government level the playing field, and if we didnt then we would still be with monarchs and nobles. In my opinion, we need a society where the sucess of the family is completely unrelated to the sucess of the individual, and for that I think free infrastructure is the way to go, theres no miracle solution, nor I think you can get it working 100% of the time.
It wasn't taboo till some idiots here was like...Social? Commune? ISM!? OMG SAME THING?! Either way, if Communism could be guranteed an implementation with a gurantee on limited government and emphasis on communal rather then country, it'd probably fare a better fair site then socialism, because in bigger countries, yes, lazy bastards (Lets be fair this is the USA) will slow down the process.
|
Agreed Railz, I think the smaller the scale the higher the chance for it to work. And yes, I imagine there to be a insanely high ammount of lazy people in the US, just reading at forums you can see that the avg american user is really ill informed about things outside their country, or models that work outside it
|
A good web site is http://www.fair.org for anyone who is interested in these sorts of occurances, media corroboration with the military, with big business advertisers, self-censorship, and other flaws and biases that have nothing to do with the left vs right hoax and have only to do with money and power.
The media in this country is basically a joke. All commercial media must be loyal to those with money and power. Any voice that is for sale to the highest bidder cannot at the same time be honest and unbiased. You see serious journalism about some drug, big important health story, then the commercial break and its an ad for the same drug. There is literally no investigating a story anymore. One of the articles on FAIR cited a study saying big newspapers in state capital cities only employ 2-5 reporters to cover state government. 20 years ago it was 20-50, so there were actually journalists digging up news stories. Now all press conferences are rehearsed, and all news items come straight from government or corporate sponsors.
|
On April 28 2009 09:08 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 08:42 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:On April 28 2009 08:22 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 07:54 Kusimuumi wrote: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. 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. I don't have a problem with socialism and people that like it. But i think what's best for Europe is not best for America. "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." You are clearly speaking out of your ass here. You don't even bother to mention exactly where you visited. I have done a lot of continental traveling and i have definetly seen homless people. But beggars at every street corner? lol what a joke. And seeing only blacks eating at Mcdonalds lmao. almost everybody eats at Mcdonalds dude this is America. But i guess you like to generalize problems instead of face them head on. And there are some gaps in economic status, and its because of laziness. America loves her diversity and there are millions of good people here. I highly doubt you visited the US. You clearly don't know anything about the states other than what you watch from our movies and hear from our news channels. I highlighted some points that I think will illustrate the fact that you are clearly speaking out of your ass here. I don't know what your trying to prove, I made my views clear. He made his clear. If you have a problem with my views that is completely fine but obviously i dont care. Why not tell me what you think instead. To be honest though I'm only intrested in what other Americans think. But i wouldnt stop you from sharing yours. I only had a problem with his comments about the states because they are definately not accurate. I believe in extreme relativism, there is no absolut right or wrong, I just question people until they realize that their stance to too extreme and not really well rounded, then I head somewhere else. In this case, I think socialism is being used as a taboo word for the americans for too long, everyone wants the government level the playing field, and if we didnt then we would still be with monarchs and nobles. In my opinion, we need a society where the sucess of the family is completely unrelated to the sucess of the individual, and for that I think free infrastructure is the way to go, theres no miracle solution, nor I think you can get it working 100% of the time.
fair enough
|
On April 28 2009 09:26 D10 wrote:
Agreed Railz, I think the smaller the scale the higher the chance for it to work. And yes, I imagine there to be a insanely high ammount of lazy people in the US, just reading at forums you can see that the avg american user is really ill informed about things outside their country, or models that work outside it
compared to other countries? Why would you think that?
|
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are.
|
On April 28 2009 09:41 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 09:26 D10 wrote:
Agreed Railz, I think the smaller the scale the higher the chance for it to work. And yes, I imagine there to be a insanely high ammount of lazy people in the US, just reading at forums you can see that the avg american user is really ill informed about things outside their country, or models that work outside it compared to other countries? Why would you think that?
I think its that classic association that we do because you have so many fat ppl =p
No offense to fatties, im fat =(
ps: America rocks, the main area where you are lazy is accepting new ideas.
|
On April 28 2009 09:43 Caller wrote:
To all people saying that "Oh, we have socialism here and it works, whereas in America there is all sorts of inequality and its capitalist"
First of all:
Finland is a homogenous country. UK/France/Germany/Canada is fairly homogenous, except for the hood's, which you seem to rather carelessly forget when you say that everybody here is equal. Japan is a homogenous country, as is Korea and Singapore.
The United States is not a homogenous country. The people are very different from each other from one part to another. Some people live in isolate communitarian societies, like the Amish. They're fairly happy, and nobody is infringing on their ability to do so. Others like the flair of business (note: business =/= free market capitalism) and so join Wall Street, perhaps later making it to the reins of government. Again, not that many restrictions on their ability to do so.
What the main problem with the hoods is simple: a disconnect of the government to the rest of America. Whereas in European countries and Asian countries, regions for the most part are not that different from each other. Sure they may have a different accent or customs, but its more comparing Brooklyn to the Bronx than New England to the Deep South. Thus, what may be good for the government (i.e. certain socialist polciies) will effect some regions well and others poorly. Thus, a universal plan, like everybody seems to be suggesting, cannot work in America, purely because a universal plan assumes everybody begins on the same footing. This is not the case in America. While it may work on a state-scale level, like in Massachusetts, it's because Boston is not that different from most other parts of Massachusetts. To take that and expand it across all different sorts of people is like forcing everybody in New England to be a Red Sox fan. Sure, people will do well under it, but you're forcing people to do things they don't want to do because that's what they are.
lol this is what i have been trying to say but you are a lot smarter than me.
|
What about the Daily Show? they are America's most trusted name in (fake) news, i cant wait to see their coverage on this. ^ ^
|
I can't help but marvel at the irony of people defending their countries in a topic where the original post indicated that the ability of the governments (specifically the US) to lead their people like sheep due to a person's lack of understanding of the big picture and over enthusiastic nationalism is shameful and infringing on natural human rights (or at least what should be our rights in America).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
