|
Stumbled upon a rather intriguing article regarding media representation of the Iraq war and maybe why so many people supported it in the beginning. Although it doesn't really come across as a surprise that this happened (just look at fox news), it does make quite a statement about the idea of "Free and Independent journalism" and how that is now in shambles. For a wonderful country founded on the philosophy of egalitarianism, democracy, and freedom, I can't help but feel a odd sense of loss for the world when it so directly compromises one of its core pillars. 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.
The Pulitzer-Winning Investigation That Dare Not Be Uttered on TV
by Glenn Greenwald
I've copied the article below, but the hyperlinks in the article don't copy themselves, so its much better to click the link =p
Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/21-6
+ Show Spoiler +The New York Times' David Barstow won a richly deserved Pulitzer Prize yesterday for two articles that, despite being featured as major news stories on the front page of The Paper of Record, were completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Bartow uncovered. Here is how the Pulitzer Committee described Barstow's exposés: Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended. By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story. And even now that Barstow yesterday won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting -- one of the most prestigious awards any news story can win -- these revelations still may not be uttered on television, tragically dashing the hope expressed yesterday (rhetorically, I presume) by Media Matters' Jamison Foser that "maybe now that the story has won a Pulitzer for Barstow, they'll pay attention." Instead, it was Atrios' prediction that was decisively confirmed: "I don't think a Pulitzer will be enough to give the military analyst story more attention." Here is what Brian Williams said last night on his NBC News broadcast in reporting on the prestigious awards: The Pulitzer Prizes for journalism and the arts were awarded today. The New York Times led the way with five, including awards for breaking news and international reporting. Las Vegas Sun won for the public service category for its reporting on construction worker deaths in that city. Best commentary went to Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, who of course was an on-air commentator for us on MSNBC all through the election season and continues to be. And the award for best biography went to John Meacham, the editor of Newsweek magazine, for his book "American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House." No mention that among the five NYT prizes was one for investigative reporting. Williams did manage to promote the fact that one of the award winners was an MSNBC contributor, but sadly did not find the time to inform his viewers that NBC News' war reporting and one of Williams' still-featured premiere "independent analysts," Gen. Barry McCaffrey, was and continues to be at the heart of the scandal for which Barstow won the Pulitzer. Williams' refusal to inform his readers about this now-Pulitzer-winning story is particularly notable given his direct personal involvement in the secret, joint attempts by NBC and McCaffrey to contain P.R. damage to NBC from Barstow's story, compounded by the fact that NBC was on notice of these multiple conflicts as early as April, 2003, when The Nation first reported on them. Identically, CNN ran an 898-word story on the various Pulitzer winners -- describing virtually every winner -- but was simply unable to find any space even to mention David Barstow's name, let alone inform their readers that he won the Prize for uncovering core corruption at the heart of CNN's coverage of the Iraq War and other military-related matters. No other television news outlet implicated by Barstow's story mentioned his award, at least as far as I can tell. The outright refusal of any of these "news organizations" even to mention what Barstow uncovered about the Pentagon's propaganda program and the way it infected their coverage is one of the most illuminating events revealing how they operate. So transparently corrupt and journalistically disgraceful is their blackout of this story that even Howard Kurtz and Politico -- that's Howard Kurtz and Politico -- lambasted them for this concealment. Meaningful criticisms of media stars from media critic (and CNN star) Howie Kurtz is about as rare as prosecutions for politically powerful lawbreakers in America, yet this is what he said about the television media's suppression of Barstow's story: "their coverage of this important issue has been pathetic." Has there ever been another Pulitzer-Prize-winning story for investigative reporting never to be mentioned on major television -- let alone one that was twice featured as the lead story on the front page of The New York Times? To pose the question is to answer it. UPDATE: Media Matters has more on the glaring omissions in Brian Williams' "reporting" and on the pervasive impact of the Pentagon's program on television news coverage. Williams' behavior has long been disgraceful on this issue, almost certainly due to the fact that some of the "analysts" most directly implicated by Barstow's story are Williams' favored sources and friends. On a different note, CQ's Jeff Stein responds today to some of the objections to his Jane-Harman/AIPAC/Alberto-Gonazles blockbuster story -- quite convincingly, in my view -- and, as Christy Hardin Smith notes, the New York Times has now independently confirmed much of what Stein reported. UPDATE II: For some added irony: on his NBS News broadcast last night suppressing any mention of David Barstow's Pulitzer Prize, Brian Williams' lead story concerned Obama's trip to the CIA yesterday. Featured in that story was commentary from Col. Jack Jacobs, identified on-screen this way: "Retired, NBC News Military Analyst." Jacobs was one of the retired officers who was an active member of the Pentagon's "military analyst" program, and indeed, he actively helped plan the Pentagon's media strategy at the very same time he was posing as an "independent analyst" on NBC (h/t reader gc; via NEXIS). So not only did Williams last night conceal from his viewers any mention of the Pentagon program, he featured -- on the very same broadcast -- "independent" commentary from one of the central figures involved in that propaganda program. On a related note, Howard Kurtz was asked in his Washington Post chat yesterday about Mike Allen's grant of anonymity to a "top Bush official" that I highlighted on Saturday, and Kurtz -- while defending much of Allen's behavior -- said: "I don't believe an ex-official should have been granted anonymity for that kind of harsh attack." © 2009 Salon.com Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
Since the article and the other ones it links to are kinda long:
TL;DR
US Gov. has been controlling and feeding info to "military analysts" so that they can report the nice side of the war but at the same time remain an "independent" source. Many of these people have vested interests in the war/military business. They show up on all the big news networks (ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/Fox), and, more importantly, these very same networks are not reporting this story. So there are some serious self censorship ontop of the government propaganda.
|
I don't know about other Americans but I've known this for years ... by watching a show that's not a reputable news show. The Daily Show always mocks news networks when they all spew out the spoon fed bullshit news handed to them. The problem isn't really the news networks though, they just can't get any other information because its locked up in tight lips. But its not like they're doing anything about it either, they just go along with it.
|
yes! now let's talk about something everyone don't already know!
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Your post makes no sense. You complain about journalism being unfree, and then post about Barstow's NYT article (hint: NYT is the largest circulating newspaper in the country) being ignored by privately owned news networks, who are free to cover whatever they want to cover. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. Stop bitching about cable news and read a goddamn newspaper.
|
That's why you don't watch fox news unless you want to fear everything. Anyways in every nation even in the US there are some lines that people wont cross public broadcast is censored for some things but you can write articles and books about events. Such as the more or less failure of the food ad dropping we did in the beginning of the war which because they where sealed food spoiled and rapidly grew mold during the 10k foot drop out of a cargo plane giving people who ate most of the food, food poisoning.
|
On April 27 2009 12:34 Jibba wrote:
Your post makes no sense. You complain about journalism being unfree, and then post about Barstow's NYT article (hint: NYT is the largest circulating newspaper in the country) being ignored by privately owned news networks, who are free to cover whatever they want to cover. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. Stop bitching about cable news and read a goddamn newspaper.
/agree with all this
(except I don't think NYT is the biggest...but it is certainly the most influential. I think Wall Street Journal has been bigger for a while and maybe even USA Today. But I didn't google it so I could be wrong)
But when all is said and done...don't watch cable news! By its nature it is simply entertainment to appeal to an audience used to watching daytime television and reality TV.
|
United States22883 Posts
You're right. USA Today is tops in circulation, but they don't really do any reporting anyways. I'll just cheat to make myself right and say New York Times Company is #1. 
|
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0.
|
On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0.
For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is.
Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On April 27 2009 12:34 Jibba wrote: GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. ...and Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal owns 6-7% stake in News Corp, 17.3 percent of Disneyland Paris, and significant shares in Time Warner and Walt Disney Company: GE Plastics is Saudi owned too.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there.
|
On April 27 2009 12:16 Railxp wrote:
US Gov. has been controlling and feeding info to "military analysts" so that they can report the nice side of the war but at the same time remain an "independent" source.
This is common all over the world and an acceptable way for not only journalists to get information but also PR people to get their message across. Lots of private companies do that. Restaurants, for instance, regularly invite top critics over and give them free meals.
|
On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there.
Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there.
|
On April 27 2009 12:34 Jibba wrote:
Your post makes no sense. You complain about journalism being unfree, and then post about Barstow's NYT article (hint: NYT is the largest circulating newspaper in the country) being ignored by privately owned news networks, who are free to cover whatever they want to cover. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. Stop bitching about cable news and read a goddamn newspaper.
If you've read through the articles, i think it becomes painfully obvious that cable news are precisely NOT free to report anything other than what the pentagon wanted them to. To do otherwise would essentially be corporate suicide. In the article, even among the "military analysts" there were those who wanted to report the other side, but were systematically shut down and blacked out when they tried to do so. They are like starving prisoners who are only fed when they obey. Being forced to choose between starving and suicide isn't really freedom.
The injustice, imHUMBLEo is painfully obvious here. Just ignoring cable and reading the newspaper is not the solution. TV News has far more power than newspapers to sway popular opinion. It is precisely the "stop bitching you cant do anything abt it anyways" attitude that lets the gov+newsnetworks get away with this. I dont mean for this to come off as a personal attack, i know plenty of people who share that notion and I'll be the first to admit that I dont know what to do about it either, but it is precisely that attitude that landed USA in the war in the first place. Which is why i think it is problematic and dangerous to just ignore/overlook the bad.
|
That happens everywhere in the world, not just USA.
|
|
|
This has been blatantly obvious since ever and many of us have been talking about it here in the last few years. But 90% of the randoms in this forum always loled at it saying it was a conspiracy theory.
People are so afraid to admit they're just another brainwashed tool being fooled by the media that they will fight for their lives to prove it to themselves that it's not truth. The mainstream American media position on the war on Iraq and Afghanistan has been specially ridiculous since 9/11, it was jaw dropping to realize how many people couldn't see this.
|
government influencing media happens -everywhere-
i just find it funny when people scream in my face that china controls the media and then think that the news they get is 100% unbiased information.
get real son. spies are everywhere, everyone wants oil and no one wants to shell out money for renewable energy sources. it's that simple.
|
WMD !
@ Pyro: the main difference is that you can find legally better sources of information here.
|
On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0.
r... o... f... l...
I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest.
|
On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there.
That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy.
The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well...
I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years.
China is everything but communist. And communism in its non-perverted form hasn't existed yet.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 18:28 Railxp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 12:34 Jibba wrote:
Your post makes no sense. You complain about journalism being unfree, and then post about Barstow's NYT article (hint: NYT is the largest circulating newspaper in the country) being ignored by privately owned news networks, who are free to cover whatever they want to cover. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, News Corp owns Fox. Stop bitching about cable news and read a goddamn newspaper. If you've read through the articles, i think it becomes painfully obvious that cable news are precisely NOT free to report anything other than what the pentagon wanted them to. To do otherwise would essentially be corporate suicide. In the article, even among the "military analysts" there were those who wanted to report the other side, but were systematically shut down and blacked out when they tried to do so. They are like starving prisoners who are only fed when they obey. Being forced to choose between starving and suicide isn't really freedom. The injustice, imHUMBLEo is painfully obvious here. Just ignoring cable and reading the newspaper is not the solution. TV News has far more power than newspapers to sway popular opinion. It is precisely the "stop bitching you cant do anything abt it anyways" attitude that lets the gov+newsnetworks get away with this. I dont mean for this to come off as a personal attack, i know plenty of people who share that notion and I'll be the first to admit that I dont know what to do about it either, but it is precisely that attitude that landed USA in the war in the first place. Which is why i think it is problematic and dangerous to just ignore/overlook the bad.
Cables news stations are private companies and they are entirely free to do whatever they want. There is no government coercion there. What makes you think the government is capable of pushing around the subsidiaries of GE and Disney? Political coercion works the other way around. Do you know why the cable news programs didn't give more coverage to the NYT article? It's not because the government stopped them, it's because it makes them look terrible. Why would they self-report their own flaws?
TV News does not have more power than newspapers. Look at the ratings the cable news programs actually get. They're miniscule, and by not watching them, you are sending a message to them. Again, they are private companies in it for profit, so they want $$$. We know cables news is bad, but you can't tell them what they can and cannot cover or who they choose to air. There's a great big market for news sources so choose one that's actually reliable.
And it is not the attitude that landed the USA in war. That statement is just ridiculous.
And yes, I did read the article, when it first came out because I read newspapers instead of getting it from terrible websites like commondreams.org.
|
Who was that black news anchor on MSNBC that it was discovered the white house was paying him to support No Child Left Behind?
|
On April 27 2009 20:31 pyrogenetix wrote:
government influencing media happens -everywhere-
i just find it funny when people scream in my face that china controls the media and then think that the news they get is 100% unbiased information.
get real son. spies are everywhere, everyone wants oil and no one wants to shell out money for renewable energy sources. it's that simple.
China is control, US is influence. Still fucked, but it's a big leap. Yeah, you can report on what you want, but gl trying to get a scoop after that. Or, you'll have a source giving crappy info, like the military. They've got guidelines on how to deal with the media, letting out only certain info and balancing bad news with good, etc.
|
Hollywood has a lot of power. It's pretty much monopoly in terms of movies created.
Seriously am I the only one being disturbed by Hollywood movies having 'terrorists' from Middle-East or North Korea or from places like that? 'Yeah lets make some movie with a lot of terrorists from these places, give them nuclear weapons and lets have special forces or president himself deal with them and add some special effects' >) 'The clock is ticking. We only have 24hours to release their friends or send them 10 billion' How many people read news from various sources? How many people will end up looking at such films? Especially kids who pick up some bad guy/good guy out of it.
Or some war-patriot related movies like Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc. that are way one sided.
Goebbels would be laughing out loud. People actually paying money and wasting their time to get brainwashed. It seems like the more time you spend reading news or keeping up with them the more frustrated you get and the more emotionas you put into your arguments. I've noticed that on many occasions. People who don't take so much time keeping up tend to come up with better pros and cons and can take different approach.
|
On April 27 2009 20:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there. That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy. The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well... I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years.
You should read up about 'Technocracy', mixed with Communism, will be the future of modern society if we get past wiping ourselves out. Technocracy involves no form of currency and hard labor is left to technology, to put it bluntly.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 23:11 eStoniaNBoY wrote:
Hollywood has a lot of power. It's pretty much monopoly in terms of movies created.
Seriously am I the only one being disturbed by Hollywood movies having 'terrorists' from Middle-East or North Korea or from places like that? 'Yeah lets make some movie with a lot of terrorists from these places, give them nuclear weapons and lets have special forces or president himself deal with them and add some special effects' >) 'The clock is ticking. We only have 24hours to release their friends or send them 10 billion' How many people read news from various sources? How many people will end up looking at such films? Especially kids who pick up some bad guy/good guy out of it.
Or some war-patriot related movies like Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc. that are way one sided.
Goebbels would be laughing out loud. People actually paying money and wasting their time to get brainwashed. It seems like the more time you spend reading news or keeping up with them the more frustrated you get and the more emotionas you put into your arguments. I've noticed that on many occasions. People who don't take so much time keeping up tend to come up with better pros and cons and can take different approach.
Your point is well taken, but it's not like this is something new. Moving images have always been used in this way.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 27 2009 23:22 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 20:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2009 15:03 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 14:51 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. Technically, communism eventually favors very little government, except you need authoritarianism to get there. Communism, as written, would actually favor more community based government over any national one. As is, China is not a communist state at all, but a Capitalistic state with an oligarchy based government. The label they used as communism is almost as silly as saying the United States is a Democracy when it is a Democratic Republic; meaning the individual means a lot in their own state, but means very little to the Federal Government - The state acts as the voter there. That's pretty much the problem of Communism: the first communist exeprience was Paris Commune, in 1870, and got raped by the "regular" French army, because it was structurally too weak to survive its ennemy. The second one are all the XX century communist experiences, which failed badly because the revolutionary state necessary to win the revolution and the war was too strong and authoritative. In Marx mind, authority had to progressively disappear under a Communist regim. Didn't work that well... I guess soon or late we'll have a third attempt. That would be actually good, because without a counter power, savage capitalism is driving humanity to ruin, as we have seen theses last 20 years. You should read up about 'Technocracy', mixed with Communism, will be the future of modern society if we get past wiping ourselves out. Technocracy involves no form of currency and hard labor is left to technology, to put it bluntly.
Where did you find that term? Never heard about it that way. I knew that technocracy means having the country ruled by technical experts (in every domain needed) instead of politicians.
|
On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite.
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
|
Fed's are taking over! give the states their freedom back!
|
On April 27 2009 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. r... o... f... l... I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest.
so you hate Ron Paul? saying republicans is pretty general so Idk if that was directed towards me or Ron Paul. idc either way, i don't like socialism or communism. so what, is it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I like Ron Paul because he is a non-interventionist foreign policiy and he believes in sound money. the war in the middle east is bull shit and has wasted lives on both sides. and the federal government is printing fake money that no one has and is stacking up more and more debt. China wants the U.S. dollar to crash and in all seriousness i can't wait untill it does. Than America will finally realize the government can't take care of them. And if you knew anything about the republican and demacratic parties in the U.S. you would realize that other than domestic issues. foreign policies between the two have never been much different.
|
On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
Again, you're thinking of state communism where a person is in theory is granted as much as the next guy. Socialism puts a small cap on the rich and a trampoline for the poor. No person needs 500 million to live comfortably, not in any nation, not by any stretch of the imagination - it equates their individual production effectivness to be equivalent to a large town? Fuck that.
Capitalism breeds ugly unions which brings down otherwise good companies.
socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
I first heard of it in the second Zeitgeist (Label me if you please, but I really don't watch that movie to learn.) After that I researched the term because I was curious. The advocating group in the movie believe that government would dissolve under such scientific rule in favor of a communal creative environment.
|
On April 28 2009 01:29 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. r... o... f... l... I hate so much republicans that it almost burns in my chest. so you hate Ron Paul? saying republicans is pretty general so Idk if that was directed towards me or Ron Paul. idc either way, i don't like socialism or communism. so what, is it wrong for me to have my own opinions? I like Ron Paul because he is a non-interventionist foreign policiy and he believes in sound money. the war in the middle east is bull shit and has wasted lives on both sides. and the federal government is printing fake money that no one has and is stacking up more and more debt. China wants the U.S. dollar to crash and in all seriousness i can't wait untill it does. Than America will finally realize the government can't take care of them. And if you knew anything about the republican and demacratic parties in the U.S. you would realize that other than domestic issues. foreign policies between the two have never been much different.
If you believe in the gold currency, you're an idiot.
1) Gold has no tangible use in human survival - it has made up value like any fiat currency, only instead of a nation printing their own money, they'll bomb the shit out another area to steal theirs.
2) If you still believe that gold still has more worth then paper, Gold is more violate in price/worth then any currency on the market.
As for China wanting the dollar to crash, what they want is a global currency, which is illegal under the constitution for any international law to take hold here. If the dollar does fall, the government won't drop it, they'll rough it out like every other 11 recessions we've been through. Besides, The federal government has defaulted on their loans before so really what difference does it make. Forcing us back into a production based economy only hurts China.
|
On April 28 2009 01:19 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 14:34 Railz wrote:On April 27 2009 13:37 only_human89 wrote:
rofl nothing new here. Ron Paul 2012, the only true conservative left that has a senate seat. sick of this socialist bull. And the U.S. federal gov. are a bunch of communist's. Limited gov ftw y0. For one, Ron Paul is a Rep, which alone means he has far less power as an individual congressmen then a Senator. Secondly, socialism and communism are not the same theory, not by a long shot, so this tells me you're either an idiot who believes, verbatim what any of the talking heads on Fox says, or second, have no real idea with socialism or communism is. Socialism is emphasis on people, communism is emphasis on the state - when practiced communism results in a highly organized government with no checks and balances on who makes the laws. Socialism is a regard on how the welfare of a nations people is created, but does not result in a specialized form of government; Socialism favors a democratic government, whereas communism favors the complete opposite. socialism sucks it promotes laziness and gives free handouts fuck that
What about people who can't actually work due to a disability? What about people who are out of work due to a bad economy? What about people who can't afford health care even though they work full time? You know schools are state funded. School is a free handout. You think people should have to be able to fund their children's education every step of the way?
I know these systems can be abused and have other flaws, but in my opinion the benefits of governments helping the disadvantaged outweigh the negatives of people sponging off the state.
|
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
|
What do you call a US "democrat" in "insert random european country"?
+ Show Spoiler +- A rightwing extremist.[
|
there is a good documentry in how much the US media echo chamber was in effect for the Iraq war called "war made easy".
plenty of footage, and in contrast, what was comming from other media outlets. its really funny to watch in retrospect. war was the only option.
|
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on.
|
On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on.
But they do tell us
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose.
|
On April 28 2009 01:51 Luhh wrote:What do you call a US "democrat" in "insert random european country"? + Show Spoiler +- A rightwing extremist.[
yeah but a true conservative would have non-interventionist policies when it comes to foreign affairs. both obama and McCain were for sending more troops to the middle east in afghanistan and pakistan. i dont know why people would vote for that. wasting more tax money and lives on a pointless war.
|
Derail on page two? damn.
|
Railz - coin has two sides. Besides China's concerns about dollar there are also intrest of some oil and natural gas rich countries who want to drop dollar in favor of euro. This is way more complicated than just China wanting more secure currency.
|
On April 28 2009 01:46 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 28 2009 02:30 eStoniaNBoY wrote:
Railz - coin has two sides. Besides China's concerns about dollar there are also intrest of some oil and natural gas rich countries who want to drop dollar in favor of euro. This is way more complicated than just China wanting more secure currency.
Ya, I know China isn't exactly innocent in all this because of the pegged yen, but the economy of the US won't disappear if they drop the petrodollar but hopefully by that point we're not the main buyer of Oil at that point.
|
On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on.
Also, http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs16/f/2007/124/3/4/Death_and_Taxes__2008_by_mibi.jpg
|
On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There isn't an unlimited supply of money in the world, but there is plenty to go around. Look at my first post in this thread too.
|
I don't think people know a fiat currency system work on its basic level, and I'm not even talking about the state of the USD.
|
On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose.
yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy.
|
|
|
Large news corporations are too entangled in business and politics at an operational level to be able to report what needs to be reported, accurately. It's a shame.
|
On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy.
I'm not sure how you can write a blank check for 700 billion.
|
On April 28 2009 02:59 randomKo_Orean wrote:Do you even know what democracy is? I think you are leaning more toward anarchy Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion.
no i am for limited government and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. and when i say this im talking about domestic issues only. when it comes to foreign policy i think the u.s. should stay non-interventionist like post world war I times. 9/11 could have and should have been prevented. but as it is the federal government doesn't even care about protecting our own borders from letting illegals cross.
|
On April 28 2009 02:34 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 28 2009 03:07 b3h47pte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy. I'm not sure how you can write a blank check for 700 billion.
Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 becase they were afraid of an impending financial crisis. They are talking about the dollar crashing, which it hasn't yet but thats what they mean. The econmy has already been suffering for awhile now. But our government is based on the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that “All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States” and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. They gave that man unprecedented power to create the TARP program.
|
On April 28 2009 03:18 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 03:07 b3h47pte wrote:On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy. I'm not sure how you can write a blank check for 700 billion. Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 becase they were afraid of an impending financial crisis. They are talking about the dollar crashing, which it hasn't yet but thats what they mean. The econmy has already been suffering for awhile now. But our government is based on the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that “All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States” and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. They gave that man unprecedented power to create the TARP program. I think you missed his joke -_-
|
On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How am I being selfish if I earned what i make? And what says i can't give back to the community without the government telling me i have to? There are too many lazy uneducated people in America that expect a free hand out from the government just because they decided to drop out of high school and quit their job every month. And those handouts are not free they are paid by the people that actually work for a living and have their own family to support. If your so righteous the next time you think about buying that computer game you want so badly think again. Give that money away to someone who didnt earn it.
|
On April 28 2009 03:25 sixghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 03:18 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 03:07 b3h47pte wrote:On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy. I'm not sure how you can write a blank check for 700 billion. Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 becase they were afraid of an impending financial crisis. They are talking about the dollar crashing, which it hasn't yet but thats what they mean. The econmy has already been suffering for awhile now. But our government is based on the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that “All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States” and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. They gave that man unprecedented power to create the TARP program. I think you missed his joke -_-
lol no i realize he was being sarcastic. i am trying not to flame too much on this thread i have been posting a lot of responses.
|
On April 28 2009 03:29 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +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. How am I being selfish if I earned what i make? And what says i can't give back to the community without the government telling me i have to? There are too many lazy uneducated people in America that expect a free hand out from the government just because they decided to drop out of high school and quit their job every month. And those handouts are not free they are paid by the people that actually work for a living and have their own family to support. If your so righteous the next time you think about buying that computer game you want so badly think again. Give that money away to someone who didnt earn it.
Is money really that important to you?
Are they bad people if they aren't interested in getting rich or something?
Also don't you think they have problems? They might be lazy, but there is probably a reason for it, i mean, not too many WANT to be unemployed.
Also here in finland we have so that if you don't even try, your welfare gets reduced.
What if some relative of yours gets depressed or something and drops from school and stuff.
Should they not get payed and just die away or something?
we have responsibility over each others.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The Military-Industrial Complex is no new phenomenon. It's been around for 50 years now.
The fact that the MIC has voices in the media is just a sign of where the money and power is concentrated. It's not with the people.
|
On April 28 2009 03:16 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 03:44 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Is money really that important to you?
Are they bad people if they aren't interested in getting rich or something?
Also don't you think they have problems? They might be lazy, but there is probably a reason for it, i mean, not too many WANT to be unemployed.
Also here in finland we have so that if you don't even try, your welfare gets reduced.
What if some relative of yours gets depressed or something and drops from school and stuff.
Should they not get payed and just die away or something?
we have responsibility over each others.
There is a difference between responsibility and a welfare entitlement. The current tax system is welfare entitlement. If you want real responsibility have people post their dire situations to the public and ask for charity. People that are fortunate will step up and pay for their less fortunate neighbors.
|
On April 28 2009 03:44 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 03:29 only_human89 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. How am I being selfish if I earned what i make? And what says i can't give back to the community without the government telling me i have to? There are too many lazy uneducated people in America that expect a free hand out from the government just because they decided to drop out of high school and quit their job every month. And those handouts are not free they are paid by the people that actually work for a living and have their own family to support. If your so righteous the next time you think about buying that computer game you want so badly think again. Give that money away to someone who didnt earn it. Is money really that important to you? Are they bad people if they aren't interested in getting rich or something? Also don't you think they have problems? They might be lazy, but there is probably a reason for it, i mean, not too many WANT to be unemployed. Also here in finland we have so that if you don't even try, your welfare gets reduced. What if some relative of yours gets depressed or something and drops from school and stuff. Should they not get payed and just die away or something? we have responsibility over each others.
You speak as if providing social welfare comes at no cost. If you've ever taken a basic economics class, you would know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. For every free check up you get, somebody else is paying through taxes. You argue that this is "fair" and that you want to take care of other people in society, but you are doing it at the cost of your future children. The government is ALWAYS more inefficient than the free market and if the government is running the show, redistribution of resources is going to be inefficient. Each dollar that the government takes for its programs is a dollar taken away out of the hands of an individual who would invest that into the market in some way or another, but the difference is that each dollar the government spends is inefficient. The reason for this is that democratic governments aren't governed by the basic tenet of greed. It is governed by getting votes. Greed creates inefficiency, lobbying for votes doesn't. Plus you toss in all the beuracratic costs of the government and you compound the inefficiency. Granted, there are immaterial externalities in government programs but I am not talking the complete lack of government--I am talking about the balance of private markets and government spending within a reasonable range. The case of many of the scandinavian countries is almost to the extreme when it comes to taxation. The only reason why these extremely socialist countries are even surviving is because they are small countries and they can function on markets dominated mostly by one or two sectors--scandinavian countries have relatively little diversity in their markets compared to the US. US would never be able to survive under such conditions because we are an influential economic power.
|
Poor people are the ones who actually can get us out of this mess. Microfinance in India, China, etc. is seen as a way to get economy back up and stable again in some years to come. Believed to be the next big thing.
Although yes, I hate the people who get benefits for doing absolutely nothing. They should clean streets, beaches, plant trees or be beneficial in some other way. No work means no food and no benefits is pretty fair. Also its better to get them back into society with that case of making them work for benefits. They don't become bums who can't work anymore.
|
On April 28 2009 03:44 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 03:29 only_human89 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. How am I being selfish if I earned what i make? And what says i can't give back to the community without the government telling me i have to? There are too many lazy uneducated people in America that expect a free hand out from the government just because they decided to drop out of high school and quit their job every month. And those handouts are not free they are paid by the people that actually work for a living and have their own family to support. If your so righteous the next time you think about buying that computer game you want so badly think again. Give that money away to someone who didnt earn it. Is money really that important to you? Are they bad people if they aren't interested in getting rich or something? Also don't you think they have problems? They might be lazy, but there is probably a reason for it, i mean, not too many WANT to be unemployed. Also here in finland we have so that if you don't even try, your welfare gets reduced. What if some relative of yours gets depressed or something and drops from school and stuff. Should they not get payed and just die away or something? we have responsibility over each others.
Money? no. Keeping what i earn? yes, and the freedom to spend it how i want. But here's a thought. Since your so keen on the welfare system i may as well just quit my job and let someone else pay for me. because hey, if i dont have to work for a living why bother. Which also means i will have less and less money to do the things i enjoy. This intrestingly enough makes people less likely to want to help each other.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
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.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:
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.
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.
|
On April 28 2009 02:45 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 02:21 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 02:17 only_human89 wrote:
US isn't capitalist man we have a mixed economy. we just happen to be less socialist than most other countries. The government is what goes and screws everything up for everyone. I am not an anarchist, but it shouldn't shouldnt be too much too ask for proper representation of the people. The federal Government does'nt even have to tell us what they spend our tax money on. But they do tell us http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/There is proper representation of the people - problem for you is, the the majority doesn't represent what you like. That is the err of democracy I suppose. yeah but i would rather be free and live with the consequences than as a slave to society and world opinion. Also Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. It is unconstitutional for Congress to delegte its power to the excutive branch. The guy has the power to directly intervene in our nation's economy.
Well for one, The executive branch was never constitutional assigned with the safeguard of the economy, congress was given that task - Congress made created the faux check for Mr. Paulson who in turn did exactly what the his job entitle is - enacting congresses 'advice'. He couldn't have acted had our elected reps not given him the green light. Just how a president can't formally declare war, the Treasury Secretary can't order a new budget - Congress assigns a budget.
|
On April 28 2009 04:40 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 04:32 Kusimuumi wrote:
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.
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.
Liberalism is a constantly changing term. Conservatives now are under the belief that the old liberal ways are the conservative ways. Liberalism is usually designated with unknown territory of governing and social order.
And the 20th century is not a direct democracy like Athens might've been. Athens had only the land owning white men in power - and only those who cared about politics. Athens was in a constant state of oligarchy, as was every Greek polis.
Americans at least want to head back to state and city government, which runs on social democracy but on a much more managable scale then what a social democracy would have on the federal level.
|
On April 28 2009 03:53 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 28 2009 01:51 Luhh wrote:What do you call a US "democrat" in "insert random scandinavian socialist country"? + Show Spoiler +- A rightwing extremist.[
fixed
|
transferring 1 dollar to the poor actually takes 2 dollars from the hands of the rich
|
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.
|
On April 28 2009 05:01 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
The term "typically american" is so typically Canadian.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
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.
|
On April 27 2009 20:31 pyrogenetix wrote:
government influencing media happens -everywhere-
i just find it funny when people scream in my face that china controls the media and then think that the news they get is 100% unbiased information.
get real son. spies are everywhere, everyone wants oil and no one wants to shell out money for renewable energy sources. it's that simple.
Its not so hard to look professional and unbiased while being unprofessional and biased, but every news station that I have ever watched seems incapable of doing it.
Its like, their audiences want them to be partisan bastards that spoon feeds crap to them, specially now that anything different would be confirming that they have been mindless bums regarding what info they get all these years and any form of media that is completely honest with you is gonna be labeled into something that scares the stupid people away.
|
On April 28 2009 05:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA 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. The term "typically american" is so typically Canadian.
I agree, but you have to admit the term typically canadian doesnt seem as offensive....infact that goes for most things containing the term Canadian.
|
On April 28 2009 05:25 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 05:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: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. The term "typically american" is so typically Canadian. I agree, but you have to admit the term typically canadian doesnt seem as offensive....infact that goes for most things containing the term Canadian.
True, I don't think offensive. I just think small, weak and angry.
|
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.
|
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).
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
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.
You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever.
I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions.
|
On April 28 2009 09:57 dybydx wrote:
What about the Daily Show? they are America's most trusted name in (fake) news, i cant wait to see their coverage on this. ^ ^
The Daily Show < Viacom < One of the five big media conglomerates, they go hand in hand, so they absolutely won't cover anything this deep!
I think a lot of this has to do with people not being able to admit they're being conned! Like someone who's been part of a Ponzi scheme for so long, that admitting it's a lie is just impossible. This psychological phenomena is called Cognitive Dissonance, and the media+government sure makes good use of it!
It's an international thing by the way. It is useless to argue which country has it worse.
|
On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions.
Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground.
But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else.
It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
![[image loading]](http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg)
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
I don't know who here has a christian ethic..
At least i don't.
<_>
|
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists.
|
|
|
Don't watch Fox News.
America still has a press that ranks among the most free in the world, even if it's not perfect. To suggest that China is even comparable to the US just because it isn't very discrete about propoganda is ridiculous. In China you can go to jail for reporting about an earthquake that destroyed poorly built schools.
|
On April 28 2009 15:21 Zzoram wrote:
Don't watch Fox News.
America still has a press that ranks among the most free in the world, even if it's not perfect. To suggest that China is even comparable to the US just because it isn't very discrete about propoganda is ridiculous. In China you can go to jail for reporting about an earthquake that destroyed poorly built schools.
Did I miss someone saying China has a free press? WTF?
http://www.wan-press.org/china/home.php
|
poor people and morals and ethics existed before christianity you know.
And whenever there's poverty, there is someone who wants to help them.
i mean, Dude. I'm not sure if you are just trolling, or if you are really that fucking stupid.
Helping poors is christian? How about other religions that practice that?
asDA;TG;ZASDGA
Human89, i thought you were arguing that socialism is bad as a whole. But now i can agree with you. I know the USA is really big. but don't you guys have states partly for that reason?
Its just that, if america added just a little bit of taxes, and gave that money for the poor people, it would be helpful.
I know there are lazy people who abuse the system, but that ought to be minimal.
And the dude quoting hitler and mussolini, trying to be smart. Dude. Hitler was a fucking idiot and i don't know too much about mussolini, except he seemed to be pretty much a douche.
But don't quote them about socialism. Quote someone like Marx instead.
Socialism is a good idea in general. Good for everyone. But its very hard to pull off. And someone will almost certainly abuse it.
world is poop 
|
Oh man, I was bored and wondering how I could waste some time and you answer my prayers with a politically charged thread. Everyone thinks they know best and since I think I know best I think all the American parties are terrible. To become a leader in America it seems you must have connections that are not easy to come by without either a) money or b) born into notable family.
C.Wright Mills had it right! Noooo~
|
Yes, poor people existed before christianity and so did ethics. Ethics before christianity, at least in Ancient Greece and then Rome, did not look like Christian ethics.
If it is true that whenever there's poverty then there is someone who wants to help, then there should be no problem having a totally free market because anyone who can't cut it for whateve reason will be taken care of by the benevolent, poor loving rich people.
If I am just that fucking stupid? I fail to see what is stupid about my post. Since Christianity is the dominate religion in Europe it only made sense to reference it. You are certainly right that some other religions argue for care of the poor. Some don't. You think the brahmins think the untouchables are noble and will inherit the earth? You don't actually think that right? You must juts be trolling because no one can be that fucking stupid.
Haha?
|
|
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 28 2009 15:08 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child. I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists.
Social liberalism, or left-liberalism, can be considered as (in some sense) a secular version of Christianity.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child.
You should question whether it was smart to ally with Stalin in the first place.
|
"US is big" is a bad reason to claim that socialism can never work there.
Europe as a whole is far more culturally diverse and has a population that is more than twice as big.
"Americans don't want socialism" is a much more reasonable statement in my oppinion.
Comparing Finland to anything is also a bit unfair, last I checked they still had an immigration of less than 10 people per year.
That said it's all about values. I don't think anyone (except for maybe the most hardcore nationalists) denies that beeing truly poor in the US is fucking terrible compared to most countries in western Europe + there are many many more poor people.
But what we Europeans sometimes seem to forget or maybe ignore is that such a system comes with advantages as well. There is a reason why almost every single nobel price winner nowadays did their research in America, there is a reason why they pay next to nothing for things such as gas. Their companies are the largest in the world and those of them that actually have nice jobs earn obscene amounts of money. Their universities are the best in the world etc, etc.
In a way China and USA are more similar than I think anyone from either place would care to admit. Both are examples of how truly remarkable things can be achieved if you just don't care about those who get shafted.
|
Well, Chinese and Americans are both loud, ignorant tourists, but the Chinese seem to possess some shyness (i.e. consciousness of inferiority) whereas Americans don't.
Sorry, it's the season.
|
On April 28 2009 15:27 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Helping poors is christian? How about other religions that practice that?
Other religions do not practice that unless you count some new age shit. "Helping the poor" was the concept which made Christianity the most successful religion in history, mostly due to we having much more poor people than rich and therefore the poor people thought that this was a lot better than their other religions.
Edit: And by the way, even though those who do not have a job in the US have it worse than the same types in Europe, everyone having a job have it better in the US than the person having the same type of job in Europe.
Firstly you earn roughly twice as much, secondly you pay roughly half the taxes, meaning that in the end you have four times as much to spend. Sure a bit of that will go towards insurances but at the end you will still have a ton more.
You know how that works? Because the US haven't ran a socialist government the past 100 years, the more money you drain out of the capitalist cycle the slower it grows and thus the slower the cake everyone gets to share grows. Therefore in the long run it is best for everyone to have less socialism, while in the short run it is best for the poor to have socialism.
You know, the US could have an as efficient social state as most Europe ones just by cutting military funding to a similar level and still have low taxes. But they can't do that, do you know why? Because they are the only western country with a military to speak of! Without them the world would be a much scarier place, if they were greedy like the Europeans and skipped the military the Europeans would have to spend a lot more or the war tension would grow like mad, weak borders creates war tension with undemocratic governments, they always have. So in the end they are basically feeding us money by allowing us to have as weak militiaries as we do.
Edit edit: Also the rich people who earns huge amounts of money through investments and such are not spending that money, instead they are reinvesting them and thus fuelling the economy. Everyone here should be thankful that such people exists since it is them who have build our current welfare, people who instead of trying to earn money because they want to spend it instead just want to earn money to earn money and this reinvesting over and over growing a wealth through creating jobs and making things people want, that is what have allowed us to live as good lives as we do today.
A baker of today lives a ton better life than he would do a hundred years ago, yet his work has not changed much at all. That is what it means to have a greater cake to share, the goal of a society should be to make the cake as great as possible.
The problem is of course that no matter how great the cake gets human greed makes most jealous when someone else gets more than them. Do not be greedy, be happy with what you get, do not condemn the rich for having more cake than you do, instead be thankful because it is people like those rich ones which have made it possible for you to get as much cake as you do.
|
On April 28 2009 21:28 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2009 15:08 Railz wrote:On April 28 2009 14:35 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 28 2009 10:19 HnR)hT wrote: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. You have the right idea, but the European states you listed (with the possible exception of Finland, about which I've no clue) have very rapidly growing immigrant communities (principally from North Africa or, in Germany's case, Turkey) which will place an insurmountable burden on their economies. So the socialist paradise these gloating Euros think they have is most certainly not going to last forever. I'd also add that we have been basically paying for their physical security since the Cold War, which is not without its economic repercussions. Very true that the United States kept the USSR out of Europe. Does anyone here seriously think that Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if the United States wasn't there? Finland would have been a soviet playground. But, as I mentioned earlier, this post is full of individuals who operate with a securlarized christian ethic and who hope the day comes when a government of some sort will fully enforce that moral code on everyone else. It doesn't really make me angry -- it is just annoying, like a screaming child. I can't find a single post in this entire thread that even begins to come close to any sort of Christian thinking, Evangelical or Baptists. Social liberalism, or left-liberalism, can be considered as (in some sense) a secular version of Christianity.
You mean the actual caring Christian sects because the bible belt is all Red, do we even live in the same country? The GOP is the party of the "bible law".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/dvd-goldfinger-front.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PYREU/PP31212~For-Your-Eyes-Only-Posters.jpg)
