For once, I was not disappointed by the 100th point. You win.
At last, victory is mine! Now, I set my sights on world domination.
Communism is a form of socialism, albeit an extreme one.
Stuff about how is it free when she paid in.
Stuff about how is it free when she paid in.
You're confusing being owed something, and someone who owes you giving you something for free. In this example anyone who meets the requirements is given said benefit, so it is being given away for free. The fact the women in the example may have earned it is unrelated to the fact she received it. Anyone else would have got it as just well without paying. The point is that for every person who college aid worked for there are how many with worthless degrees and crushing debt? And how many people had to be taxed, how much national debt assumed? It just doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to damage (some just inconvenienced, some horribly messed up) countless lives so a smaller number can be helped. Although I will admit that it seems that a education is one of the few things that should logically be given away free in a republic, I don't see how that can be possible with everything else that many to give away.
Stuff about communism and socialism.
Stuff about communism and socialism.
Communism is a form of socialism.
And Nazi's weren't communists, they were a entirely different from of insane socialist.
Stuff about totalitarianism.
Stuff about totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is any form of unlimited power held by the government, hence the world total as a base.
Stuff you said about MLK and Wal-Mart
Stuff you said about MLK and Wal-Mart
I'm about to slam my head into the wall. The point you are missing is that for the most part it was the private citizens fighting the government. Government had passed Jim Crow laws, put blacks in junk schools, and generally treated them like slaves no one could own since the civil war. Like I said government = evil. And I think he would have mattered as blacks took their business to places more friendly to them, but both ideas are something you can't ever really prove.
As for the Wal-Mart stuff, what are you talking about? Fair trade products have done well and shown that people are willing to pay more for products that don't require them to sell out since sugar grown by free men was popular during the slave era. Most folks want to be decent, more so if they can take a lazy way to do it.
Stuff about McDonalds and you being broke.
Stuff about McDonalds and you being broke.
That sucks, and I feel for you. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have got help, I am saying just saying I don't trust the government to do it.
@Nick - I think the logic, although I'm not sure how much I agree with it, is that if you are killing people potential new members will just want to stay out of the whole mess as much as possible.
@Avery - Did we agree on something and admit it? Did you lose a bet?
But, Dwayne, if there is no way to avoid the mess then what choice does one have but to take up arms against it?
What would you do? Have you ever seen 'The Patriot'?
Being outgunned didn't discourage us.
You can't reasonably ask me to defend a position I said I'm not sure I agree with.
Communism/socialism -- fascism is a form of conservatism, albeit an extreme one, and you don't see conversatives getting mixed up with fascists unless someone is using hyperbole to prove a point.
The concept of owing someone -- I'm not mad about paying taxes because I use the services I fund. Everyone uses the services taxes fund: police, firehouses, roads. Their lawyers or plumbers or electricians or doctors may have gone to public school. The government "owes" me in the same way my employer "owes" me. Not getting a return on my investment would be like paying a doctor money to keep him in business without getting services in return.
Tolitarianism -- I was taught that a dictator (tolitarianist) runs a fascist state like a president runs a democratic state, that's why I interchange the two words (tolitarianism and fascism). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wal-mart -- Wal-mart is still the world's largest country so the people buying free trade items are still not enough to sway the government. I'd love to support free trade but I don't have the extra money to spend, but I don't think that's the point I was making. The point is that the majority of American voters have to believe in a premise before their opinion matters.
MLK -- Anyway, the government was doing that because that was common public sentiment. If everyone believed what MLK believed before he came along, the government would've had to have done something about it because we directly control our representatives. Of course, the "everyone" in that statement excludes anyone who doesn't vote, so the rich white men who compromise a majority of voters didn't have a problem with Jim Crow laws. What a surprise.
Poor -- Sorry if what I said sounded whiny, I'm bitter but not self-pitying. And the government did a hell of a lot more to help me than any charity, so there's that.
That fucking exhausted me.
Sigh. Fascism being an extreme of national identity, as opposed to anarchy an extreme form of libertinism. Despite the crap they teach in schools an far right winger is Milton Friedman, not most insane dictators. The ones who could be argued to be insane right wingers are religious Muslim states and South American banana republics which tend to be very capitalist in business matters, but have fewer human rights.
There are two axes, left/right and authoritarian/libertarian. This isn't a perfect quiz but it does a better then average job.
You mean rich white southern Democrats? Although that is a whole different can of worms. Yeah, the people voting at that time were mostly racists and they created a evil government, mostly local that oppressed people. And the ones who went and did the work were NOT in the government. They forced them into a situation that they had almost no choice but to ease off being evil. I don't see how any of that is an argument for a larger more powerful government.
And you are just flat out wrong, obverseablely, about the majority of voters having to think something to matter. You just have enough votes to impact elections, or enough buying power to convince companies that something is in their best interest. In some ways a small dedicated group has more impact then a large undedicated group. Look at the impact of the Tea Party or the Occupy movement. Few people, but the dedication brought them attention and impact.
It's not that you sounds winey, and it's not that it's bad that it worked or that I even think it's common for anyone to deliberately be on welfare. I just see it as a trap, and that private charity is better equipped to cause real change. Federal programs, which from what I can see don't work very often, are not designed to help people get off them. Private charity, from what i have seen, is. Further, I feel these programs foster a sense of indifference, that people don't have to worry about folks around them because that's why they pay taxes.
Dwayne, Wal-mart still exists. Despite the boycotts, protests, and fanatic disgust they inspire, they still exist. They exist because the protests don't matter. Until we get enough people (voters) to care, Wal-mart will continue to exist in one form or another. My point is that if Wal-mart does go broke because of our protests, a new, similar "Wal-mart" will crop into existence and do the same exact shit because the law still allows them to do it. If we get enough voters to care, we change the laws.
I'm for a larger government because the entity isn't evil, the people are. It's our fault government is evil -- we suck at electing officials. With education and less partisan ignorance, we can make government work for us.
Also, private charity hasn't done shit for me.
Courtney, no government in the history of humans has really worked. Why on earth will this one be the exception? Countless solutions from pray more to the Soviet new man and everything you can think of between have been tried.
I find it interesting that people live in a country and try and change it instead of leaving to one of the countries that already exists that have your exact laws in place. Why would you make the U.S. a socialist/communist country when we have quite a few of those types of countries already out there? If you want extreme penalties for simple crimes, move to Singapore. Hate intellectual laws, move to China. Free health care, Canada is just a few minutes away. Hate the fact that the U.S. is a war mongering country, Switzerland is the complete opposite style. Everything you want is already out there. You're all just too damn lazy to move and learn a new language is what it boils down to.
Yep, I just said it. Don't like it, move away. Do I believe that statement, yes and no. Will we ever have Utopia, no. We will always have people who want more than they are worth. We will always have people committing crimes. We will never have uncorrupt politicians. Change is always good until someone learns to exploit those changes. If we get rid of all the weapons, a group of people will come in and take the country by force. Free health care and you will bankrupt the country until it survives by exploiting foreign countries. Capitalism will divide the country into very distinct classes. It is a never ending game.
But we do love talking about it don't we this unwinnable game.
I just hope that someday I understand the other side, because right now they seem sort of insane.
Everyone is insane, Dwayne. No one knows the right way, and everyone is a fool if they think they do.
The right way is to make everything (including spaceships and terraforming equipment) out of hemp, so we can coloize Mars and grow more hemp there to be imported back to Earth where we can pay people to make everything out of it and eat it all day.
They get paid in hemp, BTW.
Maybe I'm just some form of insane where optimism is a thing, but I thought the point of politics was to improve, not to sit back and take it.
Joseph -- First of all, it's not "laziness," and it's not about learning another language. I learn languages for fun, it's one of my hobbies, and I speak decent French and a little Russian and I'm fluent enough in Spanish to have a conversation with a native speaker.
Do you realize how expensive it is to move between states, let alone countries? I lost my job today because I injured my back at work and have literally no savings. Naturally, the solution would be to get a new job and begin saving up, but I can't work a job that requires bending or lifting.
Then there's the issue of education -- it's already too expensive to go out of state for college, let alone out of the country. And I'm not going for a bachelor's, I'm following up with law school; it's not an issue of "everyone has to go to college" but "this is where my talents lay and I'd fuck up my back even worse in a trade."
Digging even further, you have to deal with the fact that moving to a different country effectively means isolating yourself from your family, because the costs of moving already drained your savings to the point that there aren't any "return visits" to be had.
The reason your argument is totally invalid, though, is because you say we should move if we think there's a better system out there. That's the least patriotic thing I've heard you say. So the only people who are left are the ones who think America is at least near perfect? That would go well; nothing would change, the country would wallow in its problems, and no one would think to correct it because AMERICA. Actually liking your country means improving it so it is the best, not never questioning it.
It wasn't partiotic because I'm not a partiot. When I find a place that I think is better, I will find a way to move there. Be it a new city, state, country, whatever. I'm not so blindly devoted to this country just because I was born here.
You have a right to be free and live your life. Everything else is a priviledge. You want food? Better find a way to grow it or earn money to buy it. You want healthcare? Better learn to care for yourself or pay another person to care for you. You want shelter? Better find a way to build it or earn the money to afford a place.
You can do it yourself, pay another person, or vote to have someone forced to do it for you. Those are your three options. I've got a pretty good guess which way this country is going to continue to move.
Optimism is a thing; it's a type of mistake.
And literally politics is the study and/or process who gets what limited resources, or the processes of a government. It is a neutral word like gravity or wind, without moral overtones or implied goals.
I wrote a really long reply and then closed the window before I posted it. Fuck it. Suffice it to say I disagree and therefore I am right and you're wrong and I win.
Best post ever^^^
The idea that governments are not successful requires two assumptions
First you must assume that all governments have some core objective by which they can be measured. I see no reason to make any such assumption. The theocracy in Tehran exists to protect religious institutions. The oligarchy in Washington exists to protect corporate profits.
They both succeed pretty well at those goals.
The second assumption derives from the first. You assume that not only are all governments trying to do the same thing (in the sense that Islam or Corporate Profits are a means to an end, that end being... a happy and sustainable life for the citizens). If that is your argument then again, it's hard to say that no government has ever succeeded. No Government has yet created a Utopia, but I think that the idea that no government has ever provided a context where it's citizens can succeed is just shockingly ignorant. You must have forgot about America during the middle of the 20th Century, or even the British Empire, sure, Britain didn't make life easy on the colonials... but for British Citizens.... well things worked out for them.
Joseph, I let you get away with it earlier. I am a patriot, personally, and so I wasn't going to let someone act like I don't love America.
And so, since you in fact are not a patriot and have no special love for this great nation let me set you straight on that "love it or leave it" bullshit.
We are a nation of immigrants, we have always been. The idea is that our ancestors didn't like how things were going in their old countries and so they came here.
You see, in America we have this thing called a democracy. So, that way, if you don't love it then you can change it.
Maybe your ancestors were just brazen opportunists, maybe they came to America because they saw money and they wanted some. But the reason our economy works so well is because of freedom. So you can call me an idealist or whatever, but I like to think that the freedom to live your life as you see fit and to be able to have a voice in your government are important parts of what it is to be an American. So, if someone wants to have a voice in their government then why would you tell them they don't belong in the country that invented having a voice in your own government?
I just think it's bullshit that someone would act like I'm on some blame america first trip and then go themselves and say "I don't love this country" and "people should flee it."
Fuck that. I'm willing to admit points where our nation has made mistakes, but Jesus Christ.
End my earlier post with "and Nick speaks for me, too. I've decided to piggy-back on his posts because he is ultimately more adept at expressing my beliefs for me."
Seriously, though, one thing I want to make clear is that optimism is not necessarily the mark of ignorance. It can be grudging, hopeful and desperate, but the brand of optimism I buy is because I have faith that America can improve. Democracy exists as a vehicle for change. Government is evil because people are evil. If we chose our representatives better, our government would not be evil. Look at people like Cory Booker -- it is wholly possible to be well-meaning yet self-promoting, good yet self-serving, and a remarkable and wonderful person while still being a politican.
I'm going to kill myself after reading all this.
Goodbye, good luck, please be kind to the unfortunates.
@Court - Next time you say, "I made a mistake," and think to yourself, "Could this be replaced with the words I was being optimistic." I have found that the the vast majority of the time they can.
@Flhy - Please don't?
@Nick - Yeah, that they want to keep being the government and mostly doing what they have been doing. Every example you listed wanted to keep going on doing what they had been doing. It didn't work out that way for any of them.If you disagree with that premise I guess you can state your logic, but it seems a waste of time.
That is the point of disagreement. For some reason you seem to think government produce situations instead of make them worse, or at best get out of the way while stopping disruptive people from making the area a mess.
Let me get away with it? Invented having a voice in their government? Too funny.
We are not the only country in the world with democracy or freedom. Don't try and spoon feed me that line of crap that we tell children and the ignorant. We have the possibility to be a great country, I just don't see us being one now. That does not mean I think there are other countries better than ours. But just because all the other countries are okay or crap, doesn't elevate us to greatness.
My family ancestry is pretty simple. My triple great grandmother was a slave brought to Puerto Rico. My triple great grandfather was a Native American captured and sent to work the sugarcane plantations in Puerto Rico. My grandfather fought in Korea, my father fought in Vietnam, and I fought in Iraq.
@Dwayne: Ahhhh, so it has to not only achieve an objective unique to their time, place, society and culture, but it has to achieve this objective from here on out, ever day until forever.
Yeah, that is a tough job I see why you don't think governments are successful. You are an idealist of some sort.
I think that you have me backwards though, I don't think that government's job is to create situations. I think that the social structure that creates situations is by definition the government.
@Joe: Whatever man, I don't need to listen to you. You don't love America. Sure I think that we can do better than we are doing right now. But that takes work. People getting engaged in their democracy, doing real work on issues that matter to them so that they can change things instead of just loving it or leaving it. But hey, maybe if you don't know how American civics works then maybe we'd both be better off if you just went ahead and left the country.
Nick: Please tell me again how we are the only country with democracy and freedom. Oh, and how we invented it as well. That point was simply fantastic. Really shows me your vast understanding of American politics.
The Greeks and Romans didn't have anything like what we have. Imagine, as a pleb in Ancient Rome, would you have the opportunity to run for office? And that whole greek system was a mess from go. Like, I'm sure other people worked on lightbulbs before Edison did it, but we don't give them credit for invention because their models didn't... work.
I like parliamentary models, I mean, I'm not going to deny that they exist or that they work better now.
Но я не хочу жить в России
I don't have any problem learning foreign languages. In fact one of these days I do intend to flee to some other country (when the work is done). But I like America. I'm a patriot. I understand that you're too far up your own ass to respect the fact that some people do like this country, but what other land do I know so well? Where the songs of troubled souls all speak to me so clearly? Where the work you do is magnified across continents and oceans by the sheer hegemony of American Culture?
No, my friend, I love this country. It has given me all of the advantages I enjoy today and I owe it to future generations of Americans to make sure that they are eligible for all those same advantages when it is their time.
And our democracy, you know, it's not perfect. But I don't think that non-participation has ever improved a democracy.
God I love vehemence in a good political debate. This fucking rocks thanks to you two! (Actually being serious.)
Yes, before if you wanted to have a say in anything political you had to fight for your country or be educated. Now we let every single person vote for what they feel is best for them. We don't hold anyone to a certain standard before we let them have a voice. Hell, you don't even have to be American to vote in American politics. Just find a name and show up, no I.D. required.
But not to worry, the state elected official will actually be making the choice for you. It is the electorat that chooses the presidency and not the popular vote.
You can learn all the foreign languages you want. English is the international business language. It just makes it easier if you leave the U.S.
But I'm officially done with this conversation. I can only rile to up for so long. Just remember, patriots actually fight for their country, they don't just talk about it.
How do I define my political affiliations? It depends on the issue, but most often leaning left (not a democrat or what is now called "liberal," but left).
How do i debate my political ideologies? By repeatedly bashing my head against a wall and arguing on the internet.
You all talk about moving to Canada like we would just let you in...
In all seriousness though I love Americans, but from a fairly objective point of view (i.e. I don't live there, and no I'm not some holier-than-thou smarmy Canadian who looks down on America because I'm jealous of your palm trees)... your country is pretty fucked up these days.
Your mom just talks about it
I heard the only things Canadian border guards are allowed to say are "Welcome to Canada" and "Come Back Soon."
@Hopkins: That's not true. When I crossed the border the Canadian border guard also said, "Is it true that some of the women really have no tan lines? Have you seen this?"
"Welcome to Canada!"
@Nick - From what I see in history, the trend is towards governments having to do things they don't want after a fairly short period of time.
I really like political debate. Even online.
what you people have done is insane. As long as you realize you've all contradicted yourselves and said insane things that basically make no sense, well, carry on.
I gave up on this discussion a long time ago. I pop in every once in awhile to see if things have calmed down, but you almost need a flow chart to keep track of the ramblings.
$100 to the first person to draw out an accurate flow chart of this entire discussion. $1000 to the first person to do so using dried macaroni.
1. Someone asks "How do you define your political affiliations?"
3. Profit (in the amount of $100, to me, thank you very much.)
Oh come on, what a cop out, Hop!
I want some effort here. I want glitter pens, three dimensional drawings, dioramas, maybe even a baking soda volcano for Christ's sake! You're the kid who never showed his work in math class, aren't you?
Politics doesn't make sense. Political affiliations make even less sense. Expecting a discussion about either to make sense makes the least sense.
And you can all make all the Canadian jokes you want, but you'll never take away our bronze medal in synchronized diving... bitches.
Of course we could take it away. We'd just walk up and ask for it and you guys would hand it over and smile.
It wouldn't even be hard.
@SP - Hell no I didn't show my work! (Full disclosure: in Calculus I did no work to show.)
And I take the "New Journalism" stance on accuracy.
$1000 to the first person to do so using dried macaroni.
$1000 to the first person to do so using dried macaroni.
I'm on it!
***(a couple hours later)***
There isn't enough macaroni on Earth to diagram this thing.
See, now there's a man who knows how to put some effort into a project!
Back to making Fusilli Jerrys and selling them to suckers on eBay as original onscreen props, I guess.
I just write in these sorts of posts to inflame the subject. I have no other reason to get involved here.