Liberal vs Conservative, democrat vs republican
- Thread starter GellyBird
- Start date
moderate liberal
Republican.
I enjoy politics. However, I have no interest in digging into the few debates on political issues that have sprung up around here. I simply here for the bigger dick.
I enjoy politics. However, I have no interest in digging into the few debates on political issues that have sprung up around here. I simply here for the bigger dick.
What about the Green Party? They are pretty good about trying to expose corporate corruption. One of the reasons for going to war w/ Iraq, was to get the heat and news off of the Enron Scandal its its connection with George W. Bush.
I have a question for you guys,
What kind of views make a person liberal or conservative?
I have a question for you guys,
What kind of views make a person liberal or conservative?
Libertarian.
<<I have a question for you guys,
What kind of views make a person liberal or conservative?>>
uh, hum, well, i think for most people here it is more of the fiscal sense. liberals believe in broader government programs and regualtion, supported by more taxation. more social programs, welfare, government industrial control, ect.
conservatives want less total government spending (*ahem* even though all modern republican presidents have enormous budgets *ahem*), less welfare and social programs, highly privatized industry with little or no government interference.
basically you could say liberals have a socialist streak, conservatives have more a libertarian, laissez faire approach that is likened to greater personal accountability.
more philosophically you could say conservatives are more darwinian in approach, feeling things should play out naturally as they fall within society and it's not the government's role to do anything except provide basic security and order required by the people.
liberals might argue that government is an encompassing tool that should be employed to equalize society for those at a disadvantage and is the center of progress, or something, that's a shitty defenition, i'm a little sleepy.
anyway, keep in mind those are sort of the polar points of the spectrum, today the way people align themselves along the parties can have everything to do with one issue, like abortion or religion, ect. or it can be regional, economic, social influence, and any number of broader influences. i think few people actually evaluate what their personal ethics and priorities are, and then try to activel equate them to a political philosophy. often times i think it's far more abitrary, which is a shame. certain groups are associated with either side, like conservative christians with the right, hard-lining environmentalists with the left, and so on. all punk rockers are anarchists. greatful dead, phish, string cheese incident and widespread panic fans are green party but they're too smoked out to vote.
commie . . . . . socialist . . . .liberal . . . .centrist . . . .conservative . . . .libertarian . . . .militia member
i think it goes something like that . . . just kidding
What kind of views make a person liberal or conservative?>>
uh, hum, well, i think for most people here it is more of the fiscal sense. liberals believe in broader government programs and regualtion, supported by more taxation. more social programs, welfare, government industrial control, ect.
conservatives want less total government spending (*ahem* even though all modern republican presidents have enormous budgets *ahem*), less welfare and social programs, highly privatized industry with little or no government interference.
basically you could say liberals have a socialist streak, conservatives have more a libertarian, laissez faire approach that is likened to greater personal accountability.
more philosophically you could say conservatives are more darwinian in approach, feeling things should play out naturally as they fall within society and it's not the government's role to do anything except provide basic security and order required by the people.
liberals might argue that government is an encompassing tool that should be employed to equalize society for those at a disadvantage and is the center of progress, or something, that's a shitty defenition, i'm a little sleepy.
anyway, keep in mind those are sort of the polar points of the spectrum, today the way people align themselves along the parties can have everything to do with one issue, like abortion or religion, ect. or it can be regional, economic, social influence, and any number of broader influences. i think few people actually evaluate what their personal ethics and priorities are, and then try to activel equate them to a political philosophy. often times i think it's far more abitrary, which is a shame. certain groups are associated with either side, like conservative christians with the right, hard-lining environmentalists with the left, and so on. all punk rockers are anarchists. greatful dead, phish, string cheese incident and widespread panic fans are green party but they're too smoked out to vote.
commie . . . . . socialist . . . .liberal . . . .centrist . . . .conservative . . . .libertarian . . . .militia member
i think it goes something like that . . . just kidding
You'll find that for the most part, well off people are conservative and less well off people are liberal.
Basically, neither one is right, but liberals are more for all people, while conservatives are for the ones that have already made it. Hence, Republicans being more for the rich and democrats lean towards the poor.
Conservatives argue that people should make it on their own, without taking many factors into consideration. It is very hard to start with nothing in this country and takes a while to build up and become successful. Conservatism is a very "me me me" way of thinking. Conservatives basically just want the police and military set up to stop people from trying to take what is "theirs".
Liberals also don't take a lot into consideration. Many conservatives have worked to get to where they are and don't want the government taking it from them. Liberalism is a "equality for all" way of thinking at the expense of the rich. Usually to the extreme though.
I personally believe in a middle ground. Where it is easier for a poor person to become successful if they work hard enough. The rich hate this idea as it would butt in on their earnings.
In a utopian society, which will never work because of human nature, there are no classes and everyone lives equally. It's basically a harmonious society with little to no drama. Socialism strives for a near-utopian society. This can be seen in many European countries and Australia.
We in America are made to believe that Lassiez-faire capitalism is the greatest social structure of them all. This is pure brainwashing by the rich, or as Karl Marx calls them, the "burgeois". I highly recommend reading a summary of the "Communist Manifesto". It is not about communism, but a book about the downsides of capitalism.
If you want to see what capitalism will eventually do to a country, look at the trends for small businesses. This country has one of the highest small business failure rates in the world. The reason is that many cannot compete with corporations. How can a mom&pops store compete with Wal-Mart's prices? They cannot, it is economically impossible.
I have been in many debates with conservatives and in most cases, they turn out to be well off. It makes sense for a person to side with his best interest though. You rarely find someone who will choose what is the best for all people at his own expense.
It is sad, but it is the conservative attitude that will eventually destroy this country. The phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" has never been so true. Many people will argue that people are living better than they ever have, but in reality, they haven't. Americans are plagued with debt and many will be a slave to their debt until the rest of their lives. The poor are getting restless and are becoming tired of the opression. Many middle class people do not see this opression or will turn a blind eye to it. It exists and will one day blow up in the faces of everyone who refuses to see it.
Americans might live in a big home and drive a new car, but they do not own them. The bank owns them. The car company owns them. People are a slave to their debt, so if you think about it, their job owns them.
Conservatives often ask me for a solution to the problem that faces America. What can we do to fix it. The solution is simple in words, but impossible to execute. We must decrease the value of land and regulate how much land a person or corporation can own. This would make it fair for everyone start out. Debt for the average American would decrease considerablly. Small businesses would have an easier time opening and staying open for business. This would kill everything capitalist America represents though.
The middle class, working class, and struggling people of this country need to unite and realize that this country has a serious problem that needs fixing. It will not be fixed by writing to your congressman or picketing outside of your local city hall. You need to get out there and vote in every election. Pick the right choice in 2004. Don't vote for who you think "looks" the most like a leader. Pick the one who will do the best job for everyone, not just a certain few.
If voting doesn't work, we could always have another revolution.
Basically, neither one is right, but liberals are more for all people, while conservatives are for the ones that have already made it. Hence, Republicans being more for the rich and democrats lean towards the poor.
Conservatives argue that people should make it on their own, without taking many factors into consideration. It is very hard to start with nothing in this country and takes a while to build up and become successful. Conservatism is a very "me me me" way of thinking. Conservatives basically just want the police and military set up to stop people from trying to take what is "theirs".
Liberals also don't take a lot into consideration. Many conservatives have worked to get to where they are and don't want the government taking it from them. Liberalism is a "equality for all" way of thinking at the expense of the rich. Usually to the extreme though.
I personally believe in a middle ground. Where it is easier for a poor person to become successful if they work hard enough. The rich hate this idea as it would butt in on their earnings.
In a utopian society, which will never work because of human nature, there are no classes and everyone lives equally. It's basically a harmonious society with little to no drama. Socialism strives for a near-utopian society. This can be seen in many European countries and Australia.
We in America are made to believe that Lassiez-faire capitalism is the greatest social structure of them all. This is pure brainwashing by the rich, or as Karl Marx calls them, the "burgeois". I highly recommend reading a summary of the "Communist Manifesto". It is not about communism, but a book about the downsides of capitalism.
If you want to see what capitalism will eventually do to a country, look at the trends for small businesses. This country has one of the highest small business failure rates in the world. The reason is that many cannot compete with corporations. How can a mom&pops store compete with Wal-Mart's prices? They cannot, it is economically impossible.
I have been in many debates with conservatives and in most cases, they turn out to be well off. It makes sense for a person to side with his best interest though. You rarely find someone who will choose what is the best for all people at his own expense.
It is sad, but it is the conservative attitude that will eventually destroy this country. The phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" has never been so true. Many people will argue that people are living better than they ever have, but in reality, they haven't. Americans are plagued with debt and many will be a slave to their debt until the rest of their lives. The poor are getting restless and are becoming tired of the opression. Many middle class people do not see this opression or will turn a blind eye to it. It exists and will one day blow up in the faces of everyone who refuses to see it.
Americans might live in a big home and drive a new car, but they do not own them. The bank owns them. The car company owns them. People are a slave to their debt, so if you think about it, their job owns them.
Conservatives often ask me for a solution to the problem that faces America. What can we do to fix it. The solution is simple in words, but impossible to execute. We must decrease the value of land and regulate how much land a person or corporation can own. This would make it fair for everyone start out. Debt for the average American would decrease considerablly. Small businesses would have an easier time opening and staying open for business. This would kill everything capitalist America represents though.
The middle class, working class, and struggling people of this country need to unite and realize that this country has a serious problem that needs fixing. It will not be fixed by writing to your congressman or picketing outside of your local city hall. You need to get out there and vote in every election. Pick the right choice in 2004. Don't vote for who you think "looks" the most like a leader. Pick the one who will do the best job for everyone, not just a certain few.
If voting doesn't work, we could always have another revolution.
spektrum, i think you're a good dude, so i hate to see you biting into the communist stuff. i think you are a college student right? it seems common to get sold on the manifesto at that age . . . and by itself theres a lot of good and intriguing ideas in there, but they just don't fly.
but seriously, communism and socialist states don't work. it leads to human suffering and hardship, take a look around the world. even china, the last bastion of communism, they've only managed to revitalize their national outlook by only retaining communism as it was originally laid out under mao in appearance, they've dramaticaly swooped towards free markets. not all socialism is bad, if you read my posts you'll see i'm pretty liberal, but actual communism and ideas out of the manifesto? Marx was a smart guy, but ultimately he was dead wrong about most things and had only a limited grasp of economics as he was writing before a lot of key research and understanding had been published.
all the talk of stages of history, violent revolution, means of production, it's fascinating but it's a limited and poorly realized scenario. for instance, making ownership in the largest corporations publicly available with the market kind of negates marx's whole prerequisite for the means of production shifting hands and so on. i don't want to start rifling through academic points on marx, but he just didn't know enough and his theories aren't sound.
also the business about all conservatives being well off, i wouldn't agree with that either. you're down here in the south like me, go down to po-dunk shit-burgh wherever around where we live and see what the folks think of "lib-ralz." they don't like 'em. at least in my experience. the intellectual power base for leftism is centered in college campuses, independent publishing circles, hollywood to some extent, and environmentalist movements. all these groups carry a certain amount of influence. the stereotypical image of the liberal often portrayed by arch conservatives like o'reilly and hannity is a sissy-necked well-to-do academic who is out of touch with the real world and working people. that's a myth too, but i tend to believe that most liberals populate the middle class and conservatives dominate the extremes on either side.
but seriously, communism and socialist states don't work. it leads to human suffering and hardship, take a look around the world. even china, the last bastion of communism, they've only managed to revitalize their national outlook by only retaining communism as it was originally laid out under mao in appearance, they've dramaticaly swooped towards free markets. not all socialism is bad, if you read my posts you'll see i'm pretty liberal, but actual communism and ideas out of the manifesto? Marx was a smart guy, but ultimately he was dead wrong about most things and had only a limited grasp of economics as he was writing before a lot of key research and understanding had been published.
all the talk of stages of history, violent revolution, means of production, it's fascinating but it's a limited and poorly realized scenario. for instance, making ownership in the largest corporations publicly available with the market kind of negates marx's whole prerequisite for the means of production shifting hands and so on. i don't want to start rifling through academic points on marx, but he just didn't know enough and his theories aren't sound.
also the business about all conservatives being well off, i wouldn't agree with that either. you're down here in the south like me, go down to po-dunk shit-burgh wherever around where we live and see what the folks think of "lib-ralz." they don't like 'em. at least in my experience. the intellectual power base for leftism is centered in college campuses, independent publishing circles, hollywood to some extent, and environmentalist movements. all these groups carry a certain amount of influence. the stereotypical image of the liberal often portrayed by arch conservatives like o'reilly and hannity is a sissy-necked well-to-do academic who is out of touch with the real world and working people. that's a myth too, but i tend to believe that most liberals populate the middle class and conservatives dominate the extremes on either side.
Whats the difference between: democrat and republican?
All I know is, I work my ass off and have nothing to show for it. It's not because I waste my money. It's because I do not get paid near enough.
I'm also the owner of a small business and am getting killed by the competition. There is no possible way for me to compete with their prices. It seems like my only choice is to slave away for them making pennies.
That's capitalist america. You don't have to tell me I buy into communist beliefs. I live day to day struggling.
What do you do for a living, if I might ask?
I'm also the owner of a small business and am getting killed by the competition. There is no possible way for me to compete with their prices. It seems like my only choice is to slave away for them making pennies.
That's capitalist america. You don't have to tell me I buy into communist beliefs. I live day to day struggling.
What do you do for a living, if I might ask?
oh shit man, i really wasn't trying to pick on you at all, i hope you're not taking it that way. i'm not against people succeeding, i just don't think that communism makes life any better for those struggling. if you look at the bolshevik's they fucked over the peasants the worst, trostky wrote them all out of the equation to make sure they couldn't interfere with the institution of the state, and he thought poor workers were lazy and unreliable without brutal military discipline. now i know soviet communism and marxism ain't the same, famously so, but still, i just tend to believe it sells a lie to the poor.
as for what i do, i don't do anything, i'm a senior in high school. my parents are well-off, my dad is a research MD and my mom consults on bioethics for drug companies. i've had an easy life by all means, but that doesn't mean i automatically side down with capitalism just because it's done fine by me. i'm anything but a free market nut, and america isn't purely capitalist, we've got strong socialist elements and i'm in favor of more.
i believe strongly in government programs to bolster the middle class and help the poor achieve a better position, in other threads i argue vigorously for things like affirmative action, welfare, and various other social programs that are extremely unpopular in a board that is dominated by middle aged white males.
anyway, i didn't mean to insult you in any way, i just naturally like to decry communist philosophies, i'm the type of self-rightous motherfucker that thinks i can always make people see it my way. congratulations on your gains by the way, i'm looking to hike up the girth myself and it was inspirational to see you making strides. as soon as i head off to school and have some more free time and can get a membership on [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] i'll be right there with you.
as for what i do, i don't do anything, i'm a senior in high school. my parents are well-off, my dad is a research MD and my mom consults on bioethics for drug companies. i've had an easy life by all means, but that doesn't mean i automatically side down with capitalism just because it's done fine by me. i'm anything but a free market nut, and america isn't purely capitalist, we've got strong socialist elements and i'm in favor of more.
i believe strongly in government programs to bolster the middle class and help the poor achieve a better position, in other threads i argue vigorously for things like affirmative action, welfare, and various other social programs that are extremely unpopular in a board that is dominated by middle aged white males.
anyway, i didn't mean to insult you in any way, i just naturally like to decry communist philosophies, i'm the type of self-rightous motherfucker that thinks i can always make people see it my way. congratulations on your gains by the way, i'm looking to hike up the girth myself and it was inspirational to see you making strides. as soon as i head off to school and have some more free time and can get a membership on [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] i'll be right there with you.
This is a great argument and I'm enjoying reading it. But Spectrum you've believed to many of the liberal lies impressed upon you in your schooling and from parents. Your simply repeating rhetoric all democrats and liberals say. You say that conservative views will bring the devastation of our country? What about liberal views? In twenty years our country would be in ruin if liberals ran it. It would be a complete communistic and socialistic society revolving around laziness. By simply examing the conservative and liberal views on welfare you can see the distinct difference. Once again, conservatives believe that people should be able to make their own money. Liberals on the other hand feel that you dno't have the abilty to make your own money, and they would rather govern how much you recieve and how you may spend it, as seen with taxes and welfare.
Liberals also promote affirmative actions, which basically overtime will dumb down our society and destory the white male. In all statistics the average IQ of a white male is substantially higher than other ethic minorities. I am no racist and therefore I believe that people should be accpeted to college on a knowledge and academic based system, not on the color of ones skin.
Liberals also promote affirmative actions, which basically overtime will dumb down our society and destory the white male. In all statistics the average IQ of a white male is substantially higher than other ethic minorities. I am no racist and therefore I believe that people should be accpeted to college on a knowledge and academic based system, not on the color of ones skin.
Man dont' feed us that. There is no excuse for not being able to suceed in America. We are all gifted with the chance to perform and excel in our schooling which will pathe the way towards your outcome or future income. As for starting a new business, I believe that are too heavly taxed. Liberals tax small businesses asses off. And contrary to all the Liberals lies, BIG BUSINESS (OH NO!!!) is not the source of most of American jobs. Most American jobs are found in small business. So when you say conservatives are for the rich, thats untrue, because they want to cut taxes for everyone, we hate taxes!
Forget lables for a second. There are really only two ways to structure an economy -- spontaneous (free market) or command.
Command economies come under different labels, fascist, communists, socialist, kingdoms, etc.
In the spontaneous economy, price is the feedback mechanism. In a command economy, some has to decide who works where, how many units to produce, what products to produce, etc.
In some command economies, you are told what job you will do in life. In others, they open X number of slots, and then people get those slots through either merit or favoritism, etc.
You can't just let people do what they want in a command economy because everyone will become ski instructors or life guards, etc.
In the spontaneous economy, you can do whatever you want -- but nobody is required to buy stuff from you if they don't want your output. So your "market price" can be really low -- maybe because you produce crap, or maybe because there are too many other people producing the same thing.
So the price feedback directs people to either increase their output, or search for something else to do.
The spontaneous economy always seems more chaotic -- social engineers hate it because they have no power over it. The great unwashed masses actually determine who wins and loses in a spontaneous economy. The elites just sit their with their fingers up their asses and bitch and moan about how no one listens to their pearls of wisdom.
In a command economy, the elite are kings -- they make five year plans, direct factory production goals, provide life long employment, etc etc.
The only trouble is -- no command economy in history has outperformed a spontaneous economy. The Soviet Union collapsed because their economy was falling farther and farther behind the spontaneous economy of the west.
Command economies come under different labels, fascist, communists, socialist, kingdoms, etc.
In the spontaneous economy, price is the feedback mechanism. In a command economy, some has to decide who works where, how many units to produce, what products to produce, etc.
In some command economies, you are told what job you will do in life. In others, they open X number of slots, and then people get those slots through either merit or favoritism, etc.
You can't just let people do what they want in a command economy because everyone will become ski instructors or life guards, etc.
In the spontaneous economy, you can do whatever you want -- but nobody is required to buy stuff from you if they don't want your output. So your "market price" can be really low -- maybe because you produce crap, or maybe because there are too many other people producing the same thing.
So the price feedback directs people to either increase their output, or search for something else to do.
The spontaneous economy always seems more chaotic -- social engineers hate it because they have no power over it. The great unwashed masses actually determine who wins and loses in a spontaneous economy. The elites just sit their with their fingers up their asses and bitch and moan about how no one listens to their pearls of wisdom.
In a command economy, the elite are kings -- they make five year plans, direct factory production goals, provide life long employment, etc etc.
The only trouble is -- no command economy in history has outperformed a spontaneous economy. The Soviet Union collapsed because their economy was falling farther and farther behind the spontaneous economy of the west.
I completely agree that communism sucks. I hate the idea of communism. People always get communism and socialism confused though.
Communism is defined as a classless society where everyone shares everything. I do not believe in this because some people work harder than others. I agree with conservatives on this.
Socialism on the other hand is used in many countries that are better off than the United States. Probably the best example of this is Australia. The best way for me to define socialism is the governments control of corporate greed. There are extreme socialists and moderate socialists. I consider myself a moderate socialist.
In my opinion, the best form of government would be a combination of capitalism and socialism. I believe the government should have more of a say in wages and land control. I don't believe the government should tell you what your job is going to be or where you have to shop. The minimum wage should be raised above the poverty level. No american is worth over a million a year, I don't care what they do or what decisions they make. Not even the President makes near that.
Both systems have problems, so why not take the best of both worlds?
I try to find solutions to the problems, and even though we think we have the greatest system, we don't.
Communism is defined as a classless society where everyone shares everything. I do not believe in this because some people work harder than others. I agree with conservatives on this.
Socialism on the other hand is used in many countries that are better off than the United States. Probably the best example of this is Australia. The best way for me to define socialism is the governments control of corporate greed. There are extreme socialists and moderate socialists. I consider myself a moderate socialist.
In my opinion, the best form of government would be a combination of capitalism and socialism. I believe the government should have more of a say in wages and land control. I don't believe the government should tell you what your job is going to be or where you have to shop. The minimum wage should be raised above the poverty level. No american is worth over a million a year, I don't care what they do or what decisions they make. Not even the President makes near that.
Both systems have problems, so why not take the best of both worlds?
I try to find solutions to the problems, and even though we think we have the greatest system, we don't.
Spectrum you've said some incorrect things, in my mind above.
There are no countries better off than us, we have the higest standard of living. Australia isn't leading the world, we are.
And as for communism and socialism being separate, that is far from the truth. Liberalism, socialism, and communism are all synonyms for very close philosophies. The distinct difference between socialism and communism is that one rules from a larger base and the other rules by a distinct group or politcal party. They both deal with the distribution of wealth the only difference is how it is controlled, which both subsequentially lead back to a central government.
If this ensues, the moral of the nation will surely die. This is the reason communism and socialism may seem appealing but after a certain number of years people get educated and realize, "Hey, I want to be rich." Socialism and Communism hold back that desire to succeed. What is the worth in education, schooling, hard work, and sacarfice if the degenerate pot-head next door will get the same income for doing less or nothing? Why should my tax dollars go to bums on welfare when they could apply themselves to something instead of recieving their livelyhood from those who have decided to apply themselves? It's total BS. Why should all my hard work be diminished because people think it's unfair that there are successful rich people? One of the things bringing down America is this hate for rich people. They are said to be milking the money away from all the poor working class, BS! Take DLD for an example, all you really need to do is find something you like and it will work for you. I certaintly hope DLD gets extremely rich for all the good he has created. He doesn't complain about stuff, instead he makes his own fun and money
There are no countries better off than us, we have the higest standard of living. Australia isn't leading the world, we are.
And as for communism and socialism being separate, that is far from the truth. Liberalism, socialism, and communism are all synonyms for very close philosophies. The distinct difference between socialism and communism is that one rules from a larger base and the other rules by a distinct group or politcal party. They both deal with the distribution of wealth the only difference is how it is controlled, which both subsequentially lead back to a central government.
If this ensues, the moral of the nation will surely die. This is the reason communism and socialism may seem appealing but after a certain number of years people get educated and realize, "Hey, I want to be rich." Socialism and Communism hold back that desire to succeed. What is the worth in education, schooling, hard work, and sacarfice if the degenerate pot-head next door will get the same income for doing less or nothing? Why should my tax dollars go to bums on welfare when they could apply themselves to something instead of recieving their livelyhood from those who have decided to apply themselves? It's total BS. Why should all my hard work be diminished because people think it's unfair that there are successful rich people? One of the things bringing down America is this hate for rich people. They are said to be milking the money away from all the poor working class, BS! Take DLD for an example, all you really need to do is find something you like and it will work for you. I certaintly hope DLD gets extremely rich for all the good he has created. He doesn't complain about stuff, instead he makes his own fun and money
hey gellybird, i disagree with some of your statements . . .
the US does not have the overall highest standard of living as ranked by the UN, i can't remember who does but i don't even think we're in the top ten. we don't have the highest literacy rate, lowest unemployment, we're not really #1in much except for military, waste production, energy consumption and overall wealth.
second, we are far from free market bucaneers in this country. the intricate web of government controls, subsidation, and regualtion that maintains are economy isn't true balls to the wall capitalism by any means, so when you say US is numero uno, you're latently supporting a socialist influenced state.
okay, now i don't want to get into an argument on these points, but just slamming welfare and social programs as handouts for lazy degenerates and fuck-ups is really oversimplifying a very complicated issue. and i think there is a massive difference between liberals, communists and socialists. saying somebody is a commie because they're liberal is just spin and disinformation. there is a virtual multitude of different and varied political standpoints on the left, and some are so radically different within those defenitions that the practioners hate each other's guts.
the stuff you said about affirmative action and dumbing down the country and IQ, well that stuff really gets my goat so i won't even go into it. but be a little sensitive please. but i will ask, do you really see the country as somehow fucked if white males don't own and run everything? do you really think white men are the smartest and most capable incarnation of human beings? at least think about it. i'm not religious, but i think the only real way the world is going down in flames is if everybody abandons compassion for their fellow man, and i don't hear much compassion in your posts. i don't presume to know what kind of person you are, but i think people not caring about those suffering or disadvantaged because of darwinian social theories is way scarier than a black kid getting into a good school with a lower GPA because of affirmative action.
the US does not have the overall highest standard of living as ranked by the UN, i can't remember who does but i don't even think we're in the top ten. we don't have the highest literacy rate, lowest unemployment, we're not really #1in much except for military, waste production, energy consumption and overall wealth.
second, we are far from free market bucaneers in this country. the intricate web of government controls, subsidation, and regualtion that maintains are economy isn't true balls to the wall capitalism by any means, so when you say US is numero uno, you're latently supporting a socialist influenced state.
okay, now i don't want to get into an argument on these points, but just slamming welfare and social programs as handouts for lazy degenerates and fuck-ups is really oversimplifying a very complicated issue. and i think there is a massive difference between liberals, communists and socialists. saying somebody is a commie because they're liberal is just spin and disinformation. there is a virtual multitude of different and varied political standpoints on the left, and some are so radically different within those defenitions that the practioners hate each other's guts.
the stuff you said about affirmative action and dumbing down the country and IQ, well that stuff really gets my goat so i won't even go into it. but be a little sensitive please. but i will ask, do you really see the country as somehow fucked if white males don't own and run everything? do you really think white men are the smartest and most capable incarnation of human beings? at least think about it. i'm not religious, but i think the only real way the world is going down in flames is if everybody abandons compassion for their fellow man, and i don't hear much compassion in your posts. i don't presume to know what kind of person you are, but i think people not caring about those suffering or disadvantaged because of darwinian social theories is way scarier than a black kid getting into a good school with a lower GPA because of affirmative action.
I've decided to back up my above statement with facts. Something you have not done yet. It's kind of funny how the top 3 ranked countries happen to be socialist.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind
Some very suprising things to look at:
We have 13% of the population living in poverty. Kind of staggering isn't it?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin
This country isn't very giving.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap
Americans are great people, huh?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rob
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri
We're not that great at marraige either.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_div_rat
Put away the SUVs! This one is shocking.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
This country sure does put a lot of money into education. So much in fact, that we're ranked #47 and we're ranked #1 in budget! We spend 3x more on our military than we do on education.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_edu_spe
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_bud_exp
See, you can say all you want. Anyone who debates needs to back up what they say.
I have proven that... socialism is NOT communism.
I have also proven that... America is NOT the best place to live in the world.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_hum_dev_ind
Some very suprising things to look at:
We have 13% of the population living in poverty. Kind of staggering isn't it?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin
This country isn't very giving.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap
Americans are great people, huh?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rob
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri
We're not that great at marraige either.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_div_rat
Put away the SUVs! This one is shocking.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
This country sure does put a lot of money into education. So much in fact, that we're ranked #47 and we're ranked #1 in budget! We spend 3x more on our military than we do on education.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_edu_spe
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_bud_exp
See, you can say all you want. Anyone who debates needs to back up what they say.
I have proven that... socialism is NOT communism.
I have also proven that... America is NOT the best place to live in the world.
Last edited:
Top Ten
Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power Parity (GDP PPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 United States $8,511,000.0 (labor force: 137,700,000)
2 China $4,420,000.0 (labor force: 696,000,000)
3 Japan $2,903,000.0
4 Germany $1,813,000.0
5 India $1,689,000.0
6 France $1,320,000.0
7 United Kingdom $1,252,000.0
8 Italy $1,181,000.0
9 Brazil $1,035,200.0
10 Mexico $815,300.0
GDP per capita
------------------------------------------------------
1 Luxembourg $32,700 (labor force: 226,500)
2 United States $31,500 (labor force: 137,700,000)
3 Bermuda $30,000
4 Switzerland $26,400
5 Singapore $26,300
6 Hong Kong $25,100
7 Monaco $25,000
8 Norway $24,700
9 Cayman Islands $24,500
10 Belgium $23,400
Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power Parity (GDP PPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 United States $8,511,000.0 (labor force: 137,700,000)
2 China $4,420,000.0 (labor force: 696,000,000)
3 Japan $2,903,000.0
4 Germany $1,813,000.0
5 India $1,689,000.0
6 France $1,320,000.0
7 United Kingdom $1,252,000.0
8 Italy $1,181,000.0
9 Brazil $1,035,200.0
10 Mexico $815,300.0
GDP per capita
------------------------------------------------------
1 Luxembourg $32,700 (labor force: 226,500)
2 United States $31,500 (labor force: 137,700,000)
3 Bermuda $30,000
4 Switzerland $26,400
5 Singapore $26,300
6 Hong Kong $25,100
7 Monaco $25,000
8 Norway $24,700
9 Cayman Islands $24,500
10 Belgium $23,400
Spektrum your absolutely right. What these some of these others dont get, is that you can have socialist aspects but still be a democracy and a capatilist.
If we do things like put caps on spending unless in a state of war or emergency, then we can stop the deficit. Which is now in the trillions thanx to Bush.
We can stop corporate corupption by putting cap on how much a CEO can make. Something like they only make a percentage more than a certain amount compared to combined workers wages. Or whatever. Because they are too fuckin rich and they influence our legislature too much.
All of the business in Iraq, who are getting billion-dollar no-bid contracts, contributed to George Bush's campaign.
It was also reported that Haliburton is charging our government twice as much for shipping oil and gasoline in Iraq from Kuwait. What the FUCK? Cheney's company is ripping us off! Thats our tax money! Conservatives should be outraged
We went into to Iraq for only a couple real reasons. One is so these rich fucks can set up all kinds of billion dolllar companies using Iraqi natural resources. And they can sit in America, and sit on their fat, rich, white asses, and collect their money soaked in the blood of the American Soldier.
Oh yeah, just remember Osama Loves your SUV because foreign oil dependance sponsors terrorism. Not drugs.
If we do things like put caps on spending unless in a state of war or emergency, then we can stop the deficit. Which is now in the trillions thanx to Bush.
We can stop corporate corupption by putting cap on how much a CEO can make. Something like they only make a percentage more than a certain amount compared to combined workers wages. Or whatever. Because they are too fuckin rich and they influence our legislature too much.
All of the business in Iraq, who are getting billion-dollar no-bid contracts, contributed to George Bush's campaign.
It was also reported that Haliburton is charging our government twice as much for shipping oil and gasoline in Iraq from Kuwait. What the FUCK? Cheney's company is ripping us off! Thats our tax money! Conservatives should be outraged
We went into to Iraq for only a couple real reasons. One is so these rich fucks can set up all kinds of billion dolllar companies using Iraqi natural resources. And they can sit in America, and sit on their fat, rich, white asses, and collect their money soaked in the blood of the American Soldier.
Oh yeah, just remember Osama Loves your SUV because foreign oil dependance sponsors terrorism. Not drugs.
I never said that at all, I said that we shouldn't decide things on the color of ones skin, we should focus on peoples academics and character. If it turns out that white people run the country without affirmative action let it be. There is no need to diversify our schools or anything, why can't it just be done naturally?
This may be correct, but so what? This country has gone down the tubes and it seems there is a growing hatred for the rich. Poor or poverty stricken people have ample opportunity to rise up the economic class system. We have a public education system which all are entitled to, do we not? I don't know the exact numbers, but these 1%, as you put it, pay close to 90% of all the taxes. Many people making 20,000 or below pay no, or next to no taxes.
What is your point? Your liberal rhetoric and hatred towards Bush and his sucess is digusting. So what if we need oil? Have you forgotten about the millions of Iraqis we saved? Go and tell them that this war was not justified. You obviously know nothing about the 290,000 missing Iraqi Shiites, and Kurds who are undoubtly buried beneath the ground. You obviously know nothing of the Halabja chemical bombings. Why is it such a curse to be rich? Why do you hate rich people so much?
I'm sorry, but I love my SUV and won't give it up for some small peice of shit car. My car may consume more gas, but hey, thats what destorying terrorism is for. Have you forgotten 9/11 buddy? I bet if Gore was in office Osama would still be bombing us to this day.
And Spectrum...
If it's not the best place to live, why are you here? It seems that all you liberals have this "blame America first" mentality. There are hardly any positive things coming out of America right? So leave! You complain about your small business getting beaten out, try it somewhere else. Those socialist countries will tax you to death and even if you do succeed they will cut you back, giving your hard worked money to the poor, and see how you like it.
What is the point of aspiring to become a lawyer or doctor anymore? After taxes, they pay the government half of their money. I would rather be some poor bastard working at McDonalds and paying no taxes than working hard but knowing that half of my salary is going to go to the government.
If it's not the best place to live, why are you here? It seems that all you liberals have this "blame America first" mentality. There are hardly any positive things coming out of America right? So leave! You complain about your small business getting beaten out, try it somewhere else. Those socialist countries will tax you to death and even if you do succeed they will cut you back, giving your hard worked money to the poor, and see how you like it.
What is the point of aspiring to become a lawyer or doctor anymore? After taxes, they pay the government half of their money. I would rather be some poor bastard working at McDonalds and paying no taxes than working hard but knowing that half of my salary is going to go to the government.
no need to diversify our schools . . . holy shit man i'd love to hear you say that to some black parents. listen, the fact is, as i have said a million times before, the playing field is unequal in america.
the poor, and especially poor minorities have less opportunity in this country and it is exponentially harder for them to succeed within the system. denying that is just an unwillingness to look at numbers and facts. not all public schools are equal and not all avenues of success are open to minorities and the impovrished. i've said this before as well, i'd hold zero bitternessn if i lost a spot at any of my top college selections due to an affirmative action program because i think these programs are necessary and fair, even as an affluent white male who ostensibly has nothing to personally gain from them.
although i was for the war at the time . . . it is because i, like so many others, was lied to and sucked in by the WMD claims. using the ex post facto pretext of human rights violations doesn't seem right to me even though i agree that they are horrible, because america never would have backed a war simply on these grounds in the first place, but it now seems we are fighting one for them. and i wouldn't say it's a success for bush; his general failure has made him vulnerable in the coming in election when he could have been undefeatable. his administration has bungled the war, just as they bungled 9/11 and lost all international sympathy for the US at a time when we could have solidified our power and leadership.
i wouldn't say there is hatred for the rich, i would say there is hatred for curruption and greed. people don't complain about hard working inovators that work and contribute to make a luxurious living, that's the great american dream. they do complain about high-born underachievers that go to top schools despite poor grades and ability, snort coke and drink themselves silly, dodge wars to fly national guard runs over their home state, run down several businesses just handed to them by their father's friends as a well as a sports team whose purchase was subsidized by taxpayers, then land ass-first into the leadership of the free world where they enforce their self-rightous religious and moral opinions and openly allow the nation's highest honor to be the tool of private interest and partisan plotting.
why do conservatives consider criticism of the current administration or anything else for that matter to be unpatriotic? so i don't like bush or consevative attitudes? how does that translate to i hate america? jefferson's oft-repeated quote " . . . in a nation with newspapers and no government, or government and no newspapers, i should prefer the one with no government." or something to that effect. this new GOP rhetoric where complaining about things that are seen as not preferable is somehow anti-america, it's just bizarre, and it's implied censorship and facism. and that is truly anti-american.
i'm glad you like your SUV so much, my unborn children thank you dude. lets just all collectively take a dump on the next few generations and slurp down as many resources and accumulate as much debt as we can, it's not like i'll have to pay for it during my lifetime or worse yet my own kids and grandkids will suffer the fallout from lack of caring now . . . er, wait, fuck.
why would anybody want to be a doctor or a lawyer? well, i'm pretty sure my parents are doctors because they like contributing to people's lives and enjoy what they do for the sake of it. i'm pretty sure i want to go to law school because i believe i can contribute to society and help people by practicing law and the notion of working with the fabric of society intrigues me. believe it or not some people believe in working hard and contributing even if the government taxes your paycheck. there was a time when we didn't have much taxation, under the articles of the confederation, the country almost collapsed, it was shitty, they fixed it, with the Constitution. see the paved roads, ambulances transporting sick people, teachers educating the young, cops on the corner? see our glorious and fully justified triumph in iraq, the 100+ billion dollar one? that stuff isn't paid for by private donors. i'd go into law if it paid like social work. but why do anything if it doesn't help you personally in some way? that seems to sum up the whole conservative mindset to me these days.
the poor, and especially poor minorities have less opportunity in this country and it is exponentially harder for them to succeed within the system. denying that is just an unwillingness to look at numbers and facts. not all public schools are equal and not all avenues of success are open to minorities and the impovrished. i've said this before as well, i'd hold zero bitternessn if i lost a spot at any of my top college selections due to an affirmative action program because i think these programs are necessary and fair, even as an affluent white male who ostensibly has nothing to personally gain from them.
although i was for the war at the time . . . it is because i, like so many others, was lied to and sucked in by the WMD claims. using the ex post facto pretext of human rights violations doesn't seem right to me even though i agree that they are horrible, because america never would have backed a war simply on these grounds in the first place, but it now seems we are fighting one for them. and i wouldn't say it's a success for bush; his general failure has made him vulnerable in the coming in election when he could have been undefeatable. his administration has bungled the war, just as they bungled 9/11 and lost all international sympathy for the US at a time when we could have solidified our power and leadership.
i wouldn't say there is hatred for the rich, i would say there is hatred for curruption and greed. people don't complain about hard working inovators that work and contribute to make a luxurious living, that's the great american dream. they do complain about high-born underachievers that go to top schools despite poor grades and ability, snort coke and drink themselves silly, dodge wars to fly national guard runs over their home state, run down several businesses just handed to them by their father's friends as a well as a sports team whose purchase was subsidized by taxpayers, then land ass-first into the leadership of the free world where they enforce their self-rightous religious and moral opinions and openly allow the nation's highest honor to be the tool of private interest and partisan plotting.
why do conservatives consider criticism of the current administration or anything else for that matter to be unpatriotic? so i don't like bush or consevative attitudes? how does that translate to i hate america? jefferson's oft-repeated quote " . . . in a nation with newspapers and no government, or government and no newspapers, i should prefer the one with no government." or something to that effect. this new GOP rhetoric where complaining about things that are seen as not preferable is somehow anti-america, it's just bizarre, and it's implied censorship and facism. and that is truly anti-american.
i'm glad you like your SUV so much, my unborn children thank you dude. lets just all collectively take a dump on the next few generations and slurp down as many resources and accumulate as much debt as we can, it's not like i'll have to pay for it during my lifetime or worse yet my own kids and grandkids will suffer the fallout from lack of caring now . . . er, wait, fuck.
why would anybody want to be a doctor or a lawyer? well, i'm pretty sure my parents are doctors because they like contributing to people's lives and enjoy what they do for the sake of it. i'm pretty sure i want to go to law school because i believe i can contribute to society and help people by practicing law and the notion of working with the fabric of society intrigues me. believe it or not some people believe in working hard and contributing even if the government taxes your paycheck. there was a time when we didn't have much taxation, under the articles of the confederation, the country almost collapsed, it was shitty, they fixed it, with the Constitution. see the paved roads, ambulances transporting sick people, teachers educating the young, cops on the corner? see our glorious and fully justified triumph in iraq, the 100+ billion dollar one? that stuff isn't paid for by private donors. i'd go into law if it paid like social work. but why do anything if it doesn't help you personally in some way? that seems to sum up the whole conservative mindset to me these days.
GDP PPP -- $8,511,000,000,000
GDP Per Capita -- $31,500
It means the US economy is the most productive in the world and in history.
China, with five times as many workers, produces half as much. Meaning that each US worker produces as much as ten Chinese workers. Stunning!
As for distribution, the median US family income is $51,407 (2001). The median means half the families make more, half make less. The mean, or average, US family's income is $66,836.
Now take this to heart -- you cannot consume that which hasn't been produced. The US's vast production output lowers the cost of goods for all people.
Furthermore, rich people can't get rich if no one can afford to buy their products. The fact that some people get rich means that the vast majority of people can afford to by their products, and willingly do so.
In a dirt poor society where no one can afford anything, you can't get rich selling them stuff, now can you.
For instance, the poor and downtrodden you speak of seem to be happy to pay Tim Robbins and other liberal actors 10's of millions of dollars to see them in movies. And those compassionate egalitarian liberals seem happy to keep the money for themselves. Hmmm
Nah. The greatest predictor of adult financial success is graduating from highschool. The next greatest predictor of adult financial success is being married.
There is nothing in our "capitalistic" system that is hindering "minorities" from completing high school or getting married. However there is, in some subcultures, a focus (let's use a non-judgemental term here) on things other than education or family life.
Attending highschool is both free and mandatory. Dropping out for financial reasons is extremely rare. Most dropouts are for the ex-student's own reasons, usually at the disapproval of their parents.
I'm kind of confused at your point.
Are you saying that, to you personally, Saddam's mass murder is not a sufficient justification to topple him? Or that because normally the US wouldn't do so on that basis alone, that would over-rule your own support for toppling mass murdering dictators?
Now historically I don't think your point is correct about the US not toppling mass murderers. I recall just one administration ago that Clinton ordered an air war in Bosnia. The sheer number of human rights violations was far less in Bosnia than in Iraq -- two or three orders of magnitude less. At the time it was suggested that it was Hillary Clinton who finally prevailed in convincing Bill Clinton to start the bombing campaign.
Heres the thing. Everyone starts from a point in their life, whether it be bad or not. I admit, for me it wasn't. But for my great-grandparents, and my grandparents, and my parents it was shit poor. Back in their day they never asked for welfare handouts, they did what they had to do to make my life better, and I hope to do the same with my kids. Every generation things became better because we realized, "we might not become rich in our lifetime, but hell, if I can let my kids live better than I did, I'll be happy." You said something about my SUV's not helping your kids, hey man, I hope you instal some values into them that gives them the persistance and hard work to obtain these things like my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents did.
As far as affrimative action, I hope you arn't white and support it. It's racism, and no one can argue against that. Sure the playing field is unequal but colleges profile the quality of the high school and therefore the strength of academics accordingly. My problem is, they take it a step further and make it unequal by adding in race as a factor. It's illegal to hire people based on race, why is it not for "hiring" or accepting into colleges? Get past a persons sking color already and focus on academics which can really add and contribute to American Society.
I agree its a hatred for corruption but it is also a hatred against the rich and wealthy. It's liberal, socialistic ideas concerning economic equality which has created this class of degenerate rich hating people. Prior to the great depression we never needed a welfare system and President Roosevelt feared that this system would become to relied on by Americans. And seventy years later, he was right. There is no excuse for being on welfare, as long as your not handicapped or something. It's just an excuse for free-loaders to live off other peoples hard work.
And as for attacking Bush, come on it's pointless already. Much of the same can be said for Clinton, or even worse. For Christs sake, he had an affair in the oval office.
As for being un-patriotic, some of the things liberals say are. During a wartime, you don't suggest that Bush went to war to diffuse away from an Enron scandel, or say it was for any other political gain. That's seditious and irresponsible to suggest that a president would risk the lives of American soldiers purly for his own hide. I would have more trust even with a liberal president to make that accusation which democractic candidates make daily. There is a borderline between free speech, constructive critism, and saying things which undermine and destroy the moral of our troops. It's as if liberals want soldiers to die so they can yell, "SEE BUSH! YOUR FAILING IN YOUR WAR! WE WERE RIGHT!"
And the SUV, yeah it's very nice. I'm hoping to add this custom Bose sound system and leather chairs as well as a unneeded GPS, just for looks. But seriously, I made my money, and no one is going to tell me how I spend it, especially not after half of it is taken away after taxes.
Russia's economy is strengthening also and they run a set tax system of around 17-19% for all economic classes. Why can't we apply this? Our high taxes seem more like a deterant against hard work. We all agree our money isn't spent properly, and I won't be partison in my politics and say Bush hasn't made any mistakes. The HIV bill to Africa was an outrage for an example, as was the bill towards reconstructring Iraq. When I say this, I mean we should have used their oil for reconstructring, and reparations.
As far as affrimative action, I hope you arn't white and support it. It's racism, and no one can argue against that. Sure the playing field is unequal but colleges profile the quality of the high school and therefore the strength of academics accordingly. My problem is, they take it a step further and make it unequal by adding in race as a factor. It's illegal to hire people based on race, why is it not for "hiring" or accepting into colleges? Get past a persons sking color already and focus on academics which can really add and contribute to American Society.
I agree its a hatred for corruption but it is also a hatred against the rich and wealthy. It's liberal, socialistic ideas concerning economic equality which has created this class of degenerate rich hating people. Prior to the great depression we never needed a welfare system and President Roosevelt feared that this system would become to relied on by Americans. And seventy years later, he was right. There is no excuse for being on welfare, as long as your not handicapped or something. It's just an excuse for free-loaders to live off other peoples hard work.
And as for attacking Bush, come on it's pointless already. Much of the same can be said for Clinton, or even worse. For Christs sake, he had an affair in the oval office.
As for being un-patriotic, some of the things liberals say are. During a wartime, you don't suggest that Bush went to war to diffuse away from an Enron scandel, or say it was for any other political gain. That's seditious and irresponsible to suggest that a president would risk the lives of American soldiers purly for his own hide. I would have more trust even with a liberal president to make that accusation which democractic candidates make daily. There is a borderline between free speech, constructive critism, and saying things which undermine and destroy the moral of our troops. It's as if liberals want soldiers to die so they can yell, "SEE BUSH! YOUR FAILING IN YOUR WAR! WE WERE RIGHT!"
And the SUV, yeah it's very nice. I'm hoping to add this custom Bose sound system and leather chairs as well as a unneeded GPS, just for looks. But seriously, I made my money, and no one is going to tell me how I spend it, especially not after half of it is taken away after taxes.
What about the ACLU or trial lawyers? They are all liberal and care only for themselves as seen with ambulance chasing and law suits like the McDonalds coffee burns and the recent Cincinnati Police Issues. Christianity is more conservative than liberal, and arn't Churches fudning some of the wealthiest and most generous foundations toward the needy and uneducated? Although I love my SUV I donate tons to local churches and participate in my fundraising drives towards charities that I find productive and worthwhile.
Russia's economy is strengthening also and they run a set tax system of around 17-19% for all economic classes. Why can't we apply this? Our high taxes seem more like a deterant against hard work. We all agree our money isn't spent properly, and I won't be partison in my politics and say Bush hasn't made any mistakes. The HIV bill to Africa was an outrage for an example, as was the bill towards reconstructring Iraq. When I say this, I mean we should have used their oil for reconstructring, and reparations.
haha, well, gellybird, we're never gonna sway each other, but you defend your stance a lot more articulately than some so i give you credit for that. you seem to have at least considered your views independtly and aren;t just reading the latest ann coultier and spitting it back out verbatum.
bobbdobbs - on the war stuff: i meant that the pretext for going to war was the WMD threat. that was what was sold to america as the necessity for going to war and toppling the regime, we used to fund saddaam and hook him up with weapons when his human rights violations were worse than ever. and comparing kosovo and bosnia with iraw is slightly flawed. mass genocide was breaking out in that region, and in any event airstrikes are not a full-scale invasion and occupation. and we didn't have any trouble locating the mass graves, where as the WMD are proving rather elusive. i'm glad he's gone, we're certainly not any worse for it, but i think the war was embarked upon in an irresponsible and dishonest fashion.
on education and opportunity - again, i repeat myself, you and i had this same debate i believe. i don't think it is fair for a young black kid coming from a crime-riddled community surrounded by drugs, poverty, violence, single-parent household, ect. to be held to the same standards as say, me. i live in the country and attend a private where our teachers make 2 and 1/2 times the salary of the top public instructors, i have luxury, a great home life, and basically all my needs taken care of. if some kid coming out of the ghetto can get ten points less than me and applies to the same college and it comes down to him or me, fuck all man he should the the position. i know it's anecdotal, i and am always flaming people for using anecodtal examples, but i think it encapsulates my point easier than a drier explanation. social and economic factors havae a role to play, and social and economic conditions are often closely related to ethnic distribution. there is a gap between white people and minorites on the whole, and i believe in an equalizing factor. apologies if it seems like lunacy, but i think affirmative action is a continuation of the american promise.
gellybird - all i want to say is that getting a BJ from an intern is tasteless and stupid. but i think bush is a tool of others interests, underqualified and a willing player in somebody elses game, he's a poor example of a president, a man of marginal accomplishment and facility who succeeds as a vessel for the principles and interests of others. i don't think he is that dumb, he's smart enough. i think he's a mean motherfucker that understands the role he needs to play in the game that has taken care of him his whole life. and i cannot stress this enough, he is not qualified to be the leader of the free world. say what you will about old slick willie, but he had enormous political talent, possessed remarkable intelligence and charisma, and was a lifelong student diplomacy, economics and american history. everywhere bush has traveled in life has been on the good old boy ticket, and i hate that shit.
the stuff about lawyers, i'll just say nah. why does everybody hate lawyers so much? we'd be in deep shit without people around to study, interpret and explain the law. what is this myth about lawyers being all evil and greedy? it's a profession like anything else, they perform a service. if people don't like some of the places lawyers go to make their money (frivelous lawsuits) then criticize the legal system that allows for it. i thought we were all for making money around here? if somebody goes to law school, gets all knowed up, organizes a group suit against fen-fen and wins a giant settlement and can retire happily on their 10%, then why begrudge? it's not what i would do, but who can fault people for being smart enough to go where the bucks are?
bobbdobbs - on the war stuff: i meant that the pretext for going to war was the WMD threat. that was what was sold to america as the necessity for going to war and toppling the regime, we used to fund saddaam and hook him up with weapons when his human rights violations were worse than ever. and comparing kosovo and bosnia with iraw is slightly flawed. mass genocide was breaking out in that region, and in any event airstrikes are not a full-scale invasion and occupation. and we didn't have any trouble locating the mass graves, where as the WMD are proving rather elusive. i'm glad he's gone, we're certainly not any worse for it, but i think the war was embarked upon in an irresponsible and dishonest fashion.
on education and opportunity - again, i repeat myself, you and i had this same debate i believe. i don't think it is fair for a young black kid coming from a crime-riddled community surrounded by drugs, poverty, violence, single-parent household, ect. to be held to the same standards as say, me. i live in the country and attend a private where our teachers make 2 and 1/2 times the salary of the top public instructors, i have luxury, a great home life, and basically all my needs taken care of. if some kid coming out of the ghetto can get ten points less than me and applies to the same college and it comes down to him or me, fuck all man he should the the position. i know it's anecdotal, i and am always flaming people for using anecodtal examples, but i think it encapsulates my point easier than a drier explanation. social and economic factors havae a role to play, and social and economic conditions are often closely related to ethnic distribution. there is a gap between white people and minorites on the whole, and i believe in an equalizing factor. apologies if it seems like lunacy, but i think affirmative action is a continuation of the american promise.
gellybird - all i want to say is that getting a BJ from an intern is tasteless and stupid. but i think bush is a tool of others interests, underqualified and a willing player in somebody elses game, he's a poor example of a president, a man of marginal accomplishment and facility who succeeds as a vessel for the principles and interests of others. i don't think he is that dumb, he's smart enough. i think he's a mean motherfucker that understands the role he needs to play in the game that has taken care of him his whole life. and i cannot stress this enough, he is not qualified to be the leader of the free world. say what you will about old slick willie, but he had enormous political talent, possessed remarkable intelligence and charisma, and was a lifelong student diplomacy, economics and american history. everywhere bush has traveled in life has been on the good old boy ticket, and i hate that shit.
the stuff about lawyers, i'll just say nah. why does everybody hate lawyers so much? we'd be in deep shit without people around to study, interpret and explain the law. what is this myth about lawyers being all evil and greedy? it's a profession like anything else, they perform a service. if people don't like some of the places lawyers go to make their money (frivelous lawsuits) then criticize the legal system that allows for it. i thought we were all for making money around here? if somebody goes to law school, gets all knowed up, organizes a group suit against fen-fen and wins a giant settlement and can retire happily on their 10%, then why begrudge? it's not what i would do, but who can fault people for being smart enough to go where the bucks are?
"And the SUV, yeah it's very nice. I'm hoping to add this custom Bose sound system and leather chairs as well as a unneeded GPS, just for looks. But seriously, I made my money, and no one is going to tell me how I spend it, especially not after half of it is taken away after taxes."
haha, right on man, i was just on an outrage roll when i laid into that. my truck isn't exaclty a green-mobile either, and i can't say i feel as much remorse about it as my posts suggest i should. i'm not anti-money or materialism, i'm a shallow bastard and i'd be a big fucking liar if i said i don't need a certain level of material comfort to be happy.
i don't mean to paint conservatives as bad people or stupid, i just disagree. day to day i think most of us want the same things: freedom, happiness, and moderately priced fajita restaurants.
haha, right on man, i was just on an outrage roll when i laid into that. my truck isn't exaclty a green-mobile either, and i can't say i feel as much remorse about it as my posts suggest i should. i'm not anti-money or materialism, i'm a shallow bastard and i'd be a big fucking liar if i said i don't need a certain level of material comfort to be happy.
i don't mean to paint conservatives as bad people or stupid, i just disagree. day to day i think most of us want the same things: freedom, happiness, and moderately priced fajita restaurants.
Gellybird just dosent get it. Our president LIED! Now which is more important lying about a war or lying about a blow job? President Bush is a fuckin crook no matter what you say. He is an awful man.
What about Halliburton? Nobody has explained that. Explain why VP Dick-head Cheney's former company is charging us twice as much for oil and gas while the President has given them a NO-BID contract? The answer is Crony Capatilism.
Saying that Al-Queda would still be attackin us if Gore was in office is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even Ralph Nadar would have bombed Afghanistan.
Oh and we will get attacked again if Bush is in office, I guarantee it. Afghanistan War was not won, and the Taliban are Alive and At Large. We're wasting our troops, money, and time by staying in Iraq and not finishing Al-Queda off.
What about Halliburton? Nobody has explained that. Explain why VP Dick-head Cheney's former company is charging us twice as much for oil and gas while the President has given them a NO-BID contract? The answer is Crony Capatilism.
Saying that Al-Queda would still be attackin us if Gore was in office is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even Ralph Nadar would have bombed Afghanistan.
Oh and we will get attacked again if Bush is in office, I guarantee it. Afghanistan War was not won, and the Taliban are Alive and At Large. We're wasting our troops, money, and time by staying in Iraq and not finishing Al-Queda off.
I am a Capitalist. Not because I am rich, but because I am poor. I'll let you think about that.
The Green party would surrender all weapons and stop research and cut defense money, let alone not go to war. Denis Kusinich vowed that if he ever came to office, which he won't, he will never ever go to war with anyone. The democratic party is weak on defense and wouldn't have the balls to defend the nation like Bush did.
It sounds as if you want us to be attacked again, so you can continue to ridicule Bush. Is the death of American soldiers and citizens work towards your goals? Everyone knows that republicans are known for supplying the military and the democrats are known for cutting them down.
If a democrat was in the white house, we would be appealing to the terrorist just like Europe did during WW2 to Hitler, and look what happend. Hitler didn't give a shit and just came after us, what makes you think terrorist wouldn't do the same? You would have us lay our weapons down and sing for peace and halt all weapon advancement back to the stone-age.
If you did your history homework, you would find that Hitler did not want the United States in the war. He never "came after us". Germany lost WW1 because of our involvement, why would they want to fight the US for a second time?
Also, Roosevelt(the president during WW2) was a Democrat! And you say Democrats will not go to war.
I hate to say it, but it was under the orders of a Democrat that millions of people were killed in Japan. So, think before you talk next time.
well, it's clinton's military that we've been using, bush hasn't really altered it much, and far as i can tell it's worked alright.
clinton was harder on terrorism as well, when bush came into office they put anti-terrorism intelligence on the back burner because they didn't think it was an issue, theres plenty of documentation for that one.
i think the idea that democrats are weak militarily is another myth. where does that come from? that democrats have lower defense budgets? it's not what you spend, it's how you spend it . . . the last democrat of recent times, clinton, threw down on quite a few occasions anyways, some suggest some of his actions were too aggressive or not needed, like sudan.
i think the democratic party gets that rap because the far left side of the political spectrum has pacifiist influences, but with the exception of little dennis, all the presidental candidates from congress voted for the war. clark is a general, kerry is a vet, these guys understand the necessity and appropriate use of military force, they have spent a lifetime studying diplomacy and conflict. bush on the other hand . . . i think theres a differance between prudence and pacifism, and a lot of conservative commentators intentionally blur the line.
clinton was harder on terrorism as well, when bush came into office they put anti-terrorism intelligence on the back burner because they didn't think it was an issue, theres plenty of documentation for that one.
i think the idea that democrats are weak militarily is another myth. where does that come from? that democrats have lower defense budgets? it's not what you spend, it's how you spend it . . . the last democrat of recent times, clinton, threw down on quite a few occasions anyways, some suggest some of his actions were too aggressive or not needed, like sudan.
i think the democratic party gets that rap because the far left side of the political spectrum has pacifiist influences, but with the exception of little dennis, all the presidental candidates from congress voted for the war. clark is a general, kerry is a vet, these guys understand the necessity and appropriate use of military force, they have spent a lifetime studying diplomacy and conflict. bush on the other hand . . . i think theres a differance between prudence and pacifism, and a lot of conservative commentators intentionally blur the line.
"If a democrat was in the white house, we would be appealing to the terrorist just like Europe did during WW2 to Hitler"
how do you figure? why do you think a democrat wouldn't have taken action? if you think about it, that's just a political impossibility. america demanded action, and al gore was fully in support of military action and any use of force to locate the terrorists. like i said before, if gore had won, he would have implimented the massive anti-terrorist agenda that the clinton administration was working out at the end of clinton's term and begged bush to adopt. bush swept it under the rug.
the original proposal by clinton's security team used to be online a few places, i don't know if it still is. it proposed huge funding increases and intelligence upgrades for terrorist watch, and established a new executive department that is pretty much homeland security but more comprehensive. if gore had been elected you had better believe that it wouldn't have just disappeared like it did under bush. i'm not saying the towers wouldn't have gone down with gore, but suggesting that he wasn't prepared or willing to fight terrorism is not founded on any real information as far as i am concerned.
how do you figure? why do you think a democrat wouldn't have taken action? if you think about it, that's just a political impossibility. america demanded action, and al gore was fully in support of military action and any use of force to locate the terrorists. like i said before, if gore had won, he would have implimented the massive anti-terrorist agenda that the clinton administration was working out at the end of clinton's term and begged bush to adopt. bush swept it under the rug.
the original proposal by clinton's security team used to be online a few places, i don't know if it still is. it proposed huge funding increases and intelligence upgrades for terrorist watch, and established a new executive department that is pretty much homeland security but more comprehensive. if gore had been elected you had better believe that it wouldn't have just disappeared like it did under bush. i'm not saying the towers wouldn't have gone down with gore, but suggesting that he wasn't prepared or willing to fight terrorism is not founded on any real information as far as i am concerned.
Civilians killed in Japan during WWII were about 400,000.
Military KIA/MIA from Japan were about 1.7 million.
This compares to the roughly 13 million Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese, and about 1.5 million Chinese soldiers KIA/MIA by Japan.
Saddam is estimated to be responsible for between 1 to 2 million deaths.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
MoS Notifier:
msumone is our newest member. Welcome! -
MoS Notifier:
sepilo1017 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
bhandaripranab36 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Scorpio20-> is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
7kingmaker is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
PSP_pumper_1964 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Bminkey2 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
gtveloce is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
5byhbyhtbthb is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
ashaythakur is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Biggestzeb is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Welltraveled5 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Fatsam is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
zotygarm is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
derpalopederpde is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Dcny25 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Ottoman1 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Nnnn is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Player1097 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
homazur9 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
MatAlba is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Paragon73 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
najigarx is our newest member. Welcome!
MoS Notifier:
najigarx is our newest member. Welcome!