User Tag List

First 8910

Results 91 to 99 of 99

  1. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Let's hope he really does have the grit and resolve to rescue all us fools from the commies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    im sure that had something to do with it, but bottom line, I'd rather buy a 33,000 dollar US made BMW than a 30,000 detroit made watever. or a 17,000 dollar US made Camry, than a 15,000 dollar Ford escort.

    in the end, this is what matters most for end consumers. the product itself.
    100% Agree

    They are rescuing a company that sell cars, the majority has no desire to purchase. Bailing them out isn't going to help in the long term.

  2. #92
    Member Sture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    Hah
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I wouldn't call it socialism per se; Hillaire Belloc's term of "the Servile State" would be more appropriate. This basically means the alliance between Big Government and Big Business, who implement policies that are detrimental to the well-being of the common people.

    The ex-Communist James Burnham came to a similar analysis, although he used the term "Managerial state".
    exactly.
    it's neither capitalism nor socialism; it's plutocracy, the system that capitalist democracies, like the US was, evolve into. a ruling capitalist class supported by the political system it dominates and protected from the public by propaganda from the media that it owns.
    chomsky makes the same point btw.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Hi there, Would a new one like me be welcome here?
    Thanks so much in deed.
    __________________

    Electric adjustable beds prices and reviews

  4. #94
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Psst, Risen... I didn't want to be the one to tell yeu this... but... Canada's a socialist country. And the USA is already half socialist.

    Socialism isn't actually a bad idea, and communism isn't bad ON PAPER, it just sucks in practice since it assumes noone would abuse it.

    The USA's media just has provide enormous amounts of misinformation and such in relation to these two words, slandering them and misusing them consistantly until there's an air of fear around them.



    I'll give a great example, one which was officially endorsed by a USA president themselves (I forget which one though, sometime in the 60's anyway).

    A child in a school came up with this 'test' to show the superiourity of capitalism to communism.

    Essentially, 20 random people were picked, some athletic, some not, and they were told to do pushups. For every 4 pushups they got a candy, but they were only allowed to do a maximum of 20 pushups.

    The first day, it was divided as a whole; if everyone did the pushups, it was added togeather and then divided by the people there. If the jocks did 20 pushups and others did only 5, and the average ended up being like 12 or so, everyone got 3 pieces of candy.

    The second day, everyone recieved their own individual candy based on the number they were capable of doing themselves.

    The 'results' showed that the capitalist concept was more valid as people did more pushups when they recieved a benefit directly proportionate.



    There's a few problems with this however, first off, some of those athletically inclined would have loved to have done MORE work than just 20, they would've shown off, or tried to help others, and would've wanted to do 100 or more in some cases, but were limited aritifically, which prevents part of the benefit of communism from working; the idea is that everyone in communism has different strengths and weaknesses and that everyone will WANT to work towards the greater good, that someone who is good at manual labour should DO manual labour and excell at it to make up for the scientist who sucks at it, and in turn, the scientist would excell at their job to improve the life of the labourer.

    At least that's the concept, which was not applied well in the experiment at all.

    They also completely and totally failed to describe socialism in any way shape or form, and there was the matter of doing the 'communist' approach first, were the tests reversed, the results likely would've differed slightly due to people being more accustomed to the idea, and not immediately viewing it with tainted perception in relation to self.

    Were I to personally recreate this, I would've made the following changes:

    - Do capitalism first, then socialism, then communism.
    - Remove the restriction of '20' maximum.
    - Have one person in a wheelchair who's incapable of doing pushups physically.

    This would have several beneficial factors and provide a more accurate representation.

    First off, people would immediately recognize on the first day that the person in the wheelchair is being singled out and hurt, they are incapable of getting any candy, no matter whot they do due to the restrictions of the system. This's akin to other handicapped and similar issues in capitalism; if yeu have someone who's mentally retarded in a severe case, they have no capacity to look out for themselves, and medical insurance is ridiculously expencive for them. They would also notice that some people, who are physically inclined to such, are heavily rewarded before the test even started and that there's no way that individuals, no matter how hard they work, can ever catch up, and that the 'jocks' will often recieve many many times more benefits for less effort to themselves. As such, we move to the socialist movement next.

    The socialist experiment, will be similar to the capitalist one; except that everyone will have 1 candy taxed from them if they gain 3 or more candies. This allows everyone the opportunity to have 1 candy, and everyone to still do more to gain further candies, but the 'taxed' candies will be given to the person in the wheelchair. This will most likely encourage people to go out of their way to reach the 3 candy mark if they wouldn't normally, since they'd find it was unfair the previous day to leave the wheelchair person out entirely. It'd also encourage those who reached the 3 candy mark the previous day, to go beyond it, to try to get their 3rd candy they want, because they'd need to do more work to get the same benefit to themselves.

    The last day would be communism, with no artificial restriction, allowing those who are physically capable of doing more to show off just how powerful they can be, and by this point they'll probably be viewed rather negatively, they will likely try to redeem themselves by working harder to provide their fellows with additional candy to make up for the physical dispairities within the group. The candies will once again be divided in a communist fashion and given equally to everyone, though at this point, people will still be trying to help the person in the wheelchair, but also see the benefits of helping the group as a whole more readily.



    As yeu can see, one can twist the perceptions quite readily with little effort. It's not even particularly hard to do.

    Stop throwing around "zomg socialism! ZOMG COMMUNISM!" and panicing about them. Yeu're already living in a socialist country, yeu just don't know it.

    Here's basically yeur more accurate definitions...


    Communism: yeu own nothing, not land, food, healthcare, anything. Everything yeu do is regulated by the state to prevent people from being too powerful, or dying of starvation. This assumes heavily that everyone is willing to work hard towards the end goal of survival and prosperity, and does not take into account people being lazy or abusing the system. The biggest problem is that it often stretches things too thin, and noone gets adequate protection, especially in poor countries. But at least they have 'better than nothing', which's whot many of them would've had.

    Capitalism: Yeu own EVERYTHING, land, food, business, healthcare, etc. Yeu have direct control over everything with no nets to save yeu if something goes wrong. If yeu run into a string of bad luck, or an unforseeable disaster occurs, yeu're doomed with no chance of salvation. This system is highly abuseable, but those who are lazy may often end up living on the streets; so too, however, may people who just had a run of bad luck when the bottom fell out of their market and they have no other recourse. Medical attention is very obvious here; if yeu suffer something nasty like a persistant, expencive to treat disease... yeu can be left to rot if yeu can't afford it.

    Socialism: Yeu own everything, but are taxed heavily; the taxes ensure that basic systems such as food, shelter, healthcare and other essential neccesities are provided for universally; yeu normally live yeur life comfortably, but if yeu get sick, the hospital is paid for already through the taxes as a whole, meaning if yeu get cancer, yeu're never left wondering if yeu will be allowed treatment, yeu MUST be treated whether yeu can afford it or not; if yeu can pay for it great, anything extra is generally covered by the masses of others paying taxes who will not be using such. People will pay their taxes towards these goals on the understanding that they will be afforded the same benefits, that they need not fear for their safety if something goes wrong; if they need food, shelter, or medical attention, they have options available to them to get back on their feet. The limitation of the communal approach to only cover absolute basic services prevents the monies from being spread too thin, and allows people to continue to better themselves as a whole a la capitalism, but ensures that far fewer are left behind.



    Socialism isn't a bad thing, and it's not the "zomg the path to communism!". It's, in most cases, a far healthier choice than communism OR capitalism, and plays a happy medium role, allowing for personal growth, while still providing the basic neccesities and protections of communism. The cost of doing such is that some things, such as health care, may be slightly stunted; personal growth is sacrificed in part, rather than in whole, to provide universal care. Yes, yeu will pay substantially higher taxes, and yeur health care system will likely be slightly lower quality, but at the same time, yeu won't fear being rejected at the emergency room either just because yeur credit didn't check out.

    Conditions in the hospitals is a good indication of the three systems: american hospitals tend to be better quality on the top end, and aren't as crowded. They are expencive, and can reject people though, leaving them to die without caring, which goes against the basic concept of a hospital in the first place.

    A russian hospital would be more likely overflowing with patients, and have low quality care, trying to stretch itself too thinly, and not enough adequate coverage in general.

    A canadian hospital would generally have very good quality care, though not quite the "absolute state of the art" of an american one, it'd be reasonably close. There's likely goign to be situations of overpopulation to a degree though due to funding issues. For the most part, the quality will be "almost as good" as an american hospital, but far in excess of the overpopulated slum of a russian one.

    The biggest difference though will be that yeu can't be turned away from a canadian hospital like yeu can at an american one.

    Socialism isn't evil at all, it's just portraited that way by american media, and most americans have no clue whot they're talking about or whot the definitions even are.

  5. #95
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Psst, Risen... I didn't want to be the one to tell yeu this... but... Canada's a socialist country. And the USA is already half socialist.

    Socialism isn't actually a bad idea, and communism isn't bad ON PAPER, it just sucks in practice since it assumes noone would abuse it.

    The USA's media just has provide enormous amounts of misinformation and such in relation to these two words, slandering them and misusing them consistantly until there's an air of fear around them.



    I'll give a great example, one which was officially endorsed by a USA president themselves (I forget which one though, sometime in the 60's anyway).

    A child in a school came up with this 'test' to show the superiourity of capitalism to communism.

    Essentially, 20 random people were picked, some athletic, some not, and they were told to do pushups. For every 4 pushups they got a candy, but they were only allowed to do a maximum of 20 pushups.

    The first day, it was divided as a whole; if everyone did the pushups, it was added togeather and then divided by the people there. If the jocks did 20 pushups and others did only 5, and the average ended up being like 12 or so, everyone got 3 pieces of candy.

    The second day, everyone recieved their own individual candy based on the number they were capable of doing themselves.

    The 'results' showed that the capitalist concept was more valid as people did more pushups when they recieved a benefit directly proportionate.



    There's a few problems with this however, first off, some of those athletically inclined would have loved to have done MORE work than just 20, they would've shown off, or tried to help others, and would've wanted to do 100 or more in some cases, but were limited aritifically, which prevents part of the benefit of communism from working; the idea is that everyone in communism has different strengths and weaknesses and that everyone will WANT to work towards the greater good, that someone who is good at manual labour should DO manual labour and excell at it to make up for the scientist who sucks at it, and in turn, the scientist would excell at their job to improve the life of the labourer.

    At least that's the concept, which was not applied well in the experiment at all.

    They also completely and totally failed to describe socialism in any way shape or form, and there was the matter of doing the 'communist' approach first, were the tests reversed, the results likely would've differed slightly due to people being more accustomed to the idea, and not immediately viewing it with tainted perception in relation to self.

    Were I to personally recreate this, I would've made the following changes:

    - Do capitalism first, then socialism, then communism.
    - Remove the restriction of '20' maximum.
    - Have one person in a wheelchair who's incapable of doing pushups physically.

    This would have several beneficial factors and provide a more accurate representation.

    First off, people would immediately recognize on the first day that the person in the wheelchair is being singled out and hurt, they are incapable of getting any candy, no matter whot they do due to the restrictions of the system. This's akin to other handicapped and similar issues in capitalism; if yeu have someone who's mentally retarded in a severe case, they have no capacity to look out for themselves, and medical insurance is ridiculously expencive for them. They would also notice that some people, who are physically inclined to such, are heavily rewarded before the test even started and that there's no way that individuals, no matter how hard they work, can ever catch up, and that the 'jocks' will often recieve many many times more benefits for less effort to themselves. As such, we move to the socialist movement next.

    The socialist experiment, will be similar to the capitalist one; except that everyone will have 1 candy taxed from them if they gain 3 or more candies. This allows everyone the opportunity to have 1 candy, and everyone to still do more to gain further candies, but the 'taxed' candies will be given to the person in the wheelchair. This will most likely encourage people to go out of their way to reach the 3 candy mark if they wouldn't normally, since they'd find it was unfair the previous day to leave the wheelchair person out entirely. It'd also encourage those who reached the 3 candy mark the previous day, to go beyond it, to try to get their 3rd candy they want, because they'd need to do more work to get the same benefit to themselves.

    The last day would be communism, with no artificial restriction, allowing those who are physically capable of doing more to show off just how powerful they can be, and by this point they'll probably be viewed rather negatively, they will likely try to redeem themselves by working harder to provide their fellows with additional candy to make up for the physical dispairities within the group. The candies will once again be divided in a communist fashion and given equally to everyone, though at this point, people will still be trying to help the person in the wheelchair, but also see the benefits of helping the group as a whole more readily.



    As yeu can see, one can twist the perceptions quite readily with little effort. It's not even particularly hard to do.

    Stop throwing around "zomg socialism! ZOMG COMMUNISM!" and panicing about them. Yeu're already living in a socialist country, yeu just don't know it.

    Here's basically yeur more accurate definitions...


    Communism: yeu own nothing, not land, food, healthcare, anything. Everything yeu do is regulated by the state to prevent people from being too powerful, or dying of starvation. This assumes heavily that everyone is willing to work hard towards the end goal of survival and prosperity, and does not take into account people being lazy or abusing the system. The biggest problem is that it often stretches things too thin, and noone gets adequate protection, especially in poor countries. But at least they have 'better than nothing', which's whot many of them would've had.

    Capitalism: Yeu own EVERYTHING, land, food, business, healthcare, etc. Yeu have direct control over everything with no nets to save yeu if something goes wrong. If yeu run into a string of bad luck, or an unforseeable disaster occurs, yeu're doomed with no chance of salvation. This system is highly abuseable, but those who are lazy may often end up living on the streets; so too, however, may people who just had a run of bad luck when the bottom fell out of their market and they have no other recourse. Medical attention is very obvious here; if yeu suffer something nasty like a persistant, expencive to treat disease... yeu can be left to rot if yeu can't afford it.

    Socialism: Yeu own everything, but are taxed heavily; the taxes ensure that basic systems such as food, shelter, healthcare and other essential neccesities are provided for universally; yeu normally live yeur life comfortably, but if yeu get sick, the hospital is paid for already through the taxes as a whole, meaning if yeu get cancer, yeu're never left wondering if yeu will be allowed treatment, yeu MUST be treated whether yeu can afford it or not; if yeu can pay for it great, anything extra is generally covered by the masses of others paying taxes who will not be using such. People will pay their taxes towards these goals on the understanding that they will be afforded the same benefits, that they need not fear for their safety if something goes wrong; if they need food, shelter, or medical attention, they have options available to them to get back on their feet. The limitation of the communal approach to only cover absolute basic services prevents the monies from being spread too thin, and allows people to continue to better themselves as a whole a la capitalism, but ensures that far fewer are left behind.



    Socialism isn't a bad thing, and it's not the "zomg the path to communism!". It's, in most cases, a far healthier choice than communism OR capitalism, and plays a happy medium role, allowing for personal growth, while still providing the basic neccesities and protections of communism. The cost of doing such is that some things, such as health care, may be slightly stunted; personal growth is sacrificed in part, rather than in whole, to provide universal care. Yes, yeu will pay substantially higher taxes, and yeur health care system will likely be slightly lower quality, but at the same time, yeu won't fear being rejected at the emergency room either just because yeur credit didn't check out.

    Conditions in the hospitals is a good indication of the three systems: american hospitals tend to be better quality on the top end, and aren't as crowded. They are expencive, and can reject people though, leaving them to die without caring, which goes against the basic concept of a hospital in the first place.

    A russian hospital would be more likely overflowing with patients, and have low quality care, trying to stretch itself too thinly, and not enough adequate coverage in general.

    A canadian hospital would generally have very good quality care, though not quite the "absolute state of the art" of an american one, it'd be reasonably close. There's likely goign to be situations of overpopulation to a degree though due to funding issues. For the most part, the quality will be "almost as good" as an american hospital, but far in excess of the overpopulated slum of a russian one.

    The biggest difference though will be that yeu can't be turned away from a canadian hospital like yeu can at an american one.

    Socialism isn't evil at all, it's just portraited that way by american media, and most americans have no clue whot they're talking about or whot the definitions even are.
    NO.

    And I honestly can't resist the urge to point out the fact that although I didn't start this thread out of a belief that there would be some communist takeover (it was more a look into how far left/liberal ideals can seep into the system and change it from within, which I can't call myself correct on here because very few of you has enough background knowledge to even comprehend the scope and implications), I find it funny how just a couple weeks ago, self avowed COMMUNIST Van Jones, the green jobs *CZARRRRRRR*, was pressured to resign because of his communist, radical, and reverse racist ideas that caused a great public controversy. Not to mention the other self avowed socialists, communists, and Marxists now in the white house and surrounding the president in his circle of "trusted" friends and partners. Another story that likely only 15% of you even heard or understood, but I'm not here to spoon feed you news.

  6. #96
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Since I already know you'll want to come and ask what makes him communist or controversial (talking about this FORMER green jobs CZARRRRR, Van Jones), I'll lay some quotes:

    "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28 (1992), and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a communist."

    "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And I was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

    ""And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy, well, guess what. Renewable energy. Guess what, solar industry. Guess what, wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt."

    And the Quote most pertinent to the point of the OP, that radical lefties like this will attempt to change the whole system from within, one of my favorite Van Jones Quotes:

    "his movement is deeper than a solar panel. Deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system. We're going to change the whole thing. We're not going to put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system. We want a new system."

    And the statements that get more controversial, especially in the race aspect:

    "What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who come here from all around the world, who we're willing to have out in the fields with poison being sprayed on them, poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system and then we're and we're willing to poison them and poison the Earth to put food on our table but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect?"

    "The white polluters and the white environmentals are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities. "

  7. #97
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    I thought the United States just did everything by incremental changes?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  8. #98
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I don't see how quoting radical psychotics is going to prove a point >.>

    How's about someone who's actually viewed as being a role model and respectable?

    “This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation” - Albert Einstein

    I mean, if I wanted to quote ridiculous nonsense, I could just quote practically anything Bush said, but the insane extremist is not a good example to base a belief on.

    I've seen people who end up being conspiracy theorists because they latch onto misconceived words of politicians and tv stars... and I know someone who's insistant that airplanes don't exist because it's just trains with holographic projections (don't ask).

    Relying on the example of the insane and the fanatic is a poor way in general though, when trying to prove a point. Strawman propping just really doesn't work except to hurt yeur own point of view, unless yeu're preaching to the choir, in which case it doesn't matter whot yeu say, they're going to grow more fanatical regardless of how silly it was. The rest of the world, however, will just view it as nonsense.

    The point is that communism DOES NOT WORK, we know this already. It's based on flawed assumptions, and it is never going to work on a larger scale. Under very small, constrained and carefully restricted circumstances, it works very well, but in the 'real world', outside of a lab? No, not even remotely.

    That being said, why people think that socialism leads to communism, the only way they think that is because they're force fed it, no matter how ridiculous a claim it is. Most people don't even know the definitions of the terms. People are SCARED of socialism without even knowing the definition of the word >.>

    And yet... in many ways the USA already has several socialistic tendancies built into it, and people don't even recognize them as such. It's not like it's a bad thing, and it's not a "zomg let's destroy capitalism!", because there isn't a single capitalist country on the planet. There are those who CALL themselves capitalist, but they really aren't. There are those who CALL themselves communist... but they aren't either. Noone's ever fully 100% embraced either extreme, which's probably good because both extremes are dangerous and work out exceptionally poorly in practice. Under a truly capitalistic society, one which was 100% so, it'd be difficult to differentiate from a 3rd world oil baron country.

    That being said, capitalism in the basic concept isn't really bad, but it revolves around as many flawed assumptions as communism does, and that's why it's never been fully implimented, because it just really wouldn't work. The pseudo-capitalism the states has is more capitalistic than socialist, but it does maintain a semi-healthy balance of the two ideals.

    In any case, my main point was that yeu can't go "ZOMG GRRRRR@SOCIALISM! >=O >=O >=O " if yeu don't even know whot it is. It's not the "foot in the door" of communism, nor is it the extremist, it's actually more the moderate middleground.

    Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, pretty much any of the neutral countries, the ones who lead the world in technology on a consumer level... are socialist.

    For several years I had to work selling and offering billing/tech support to american consumers in regards to cable tv, and learned from the inside how the system worked... and primarily how it failed to.

    It was funny as hell to me to have to tell someone living in a major city that they were getting a "really good deal" to buy 3meg internet at $80/month american... when I was getting 15meg for half that cost in a crappy middle of nowheres wannabe town.

    Why did this occur? Because the USA resists some of the basic socialistic tendancies so much that they heavily lag behind much of the world. They may 'invent' many things, but they can't afford to buy them, or don't have access to them. For this example, the USA does not consider television or internet to be utilities, and has consistantly and strictly resisted the idea of doing so. Utilities in the states are treated via socialist infrastructure... if the utility wants to install or upgrade services, they're allowed to do so. In the case of internet and cable, they can't do so, because it's treated as a capitalist venture. Yeu can't override things and upgrade the cable lines to better quality if that retirement home on the block refuses to allow yeu to do the noisy construction required for it, yeu need special permission to do so, and to waste time and effort attending meetings and arguing yeur case. If it were treated in a socialist manner, the services would be considered part of public domain, and would be capable of overriding the need for such, and could be installed regardless of whot the few want, so that it could benefit the majority.

    As such, much of the states is far behind most of the civilized world in access to technology. Whereas in socialist countries... well for example, here in canada, New Brunswick has recently began a plan to insist on internet infrastructure to be available to *EVERYONE*, regardless of how far they are from major towns, and is upgrading the quality of their lines to better provide service. They're able to do this through the use of socialist laws, and it wouldn't be possible otherwise.

    The resistance against such things is just silly; stuff like water, sewers, electricity and so on are already enacted through a socialist model of infrastructure in the USA. Would yeu really want it to be any other way? To have to pay tens of thousands of dollars and personally hire someone to add a sewer line to yeur new home, and to have to manually go out and dig through miles of red tape to get permits and access to do so, individually contact each person who may be affected by the noise pollution and so on? Wouldn't yeu LOVE to be personally responsible for paving the sidewalk and road in front of yeur house? If the power went out when someone rammed their car into a telephone pole, that yeu wouldn't be able to get it back on for 3 weeks because the old lady who owns the property refuses to let the electric company repair it since she has a generator?

    Truly, the basic premise isn't actually bad at all, but the word gets tossed around and abused by fear mongers, eager to keep their position. Terrorism exists in many forms, and by definition involves spreading of fear and terror to serve one's own aims. Invoking needless fears over things like being allowed to go to a hospital and receive life saving care even if yeu don't have a credit card on yeu is... disgusting really.

    That being said, the point of anything is to be changed 'from within the system'. To provide valid argument, explain the points, and let it be decided intelligently. To do otherwise, is to invoke a coup and pursuade by force, so I can't say I grasp the concept of yeur "it was more a look into how far left/liberal ideals can seep into the system and change it from within" is a bad thing. The whole POINT of democracy is such!

    I'll never understand why people work against their own interests out of fear of change. Wouldn't it make more sense to intelligently and rationally sit down, evaluate the information, and pick whot makes the most sense, rather than running around screaming and flailing in panic spouting fearmongering rhetoric?

    I dunno, it just seems weird to me honestly.

    That being said, I'll also argue against myself as well; socialism is also founded upon flawed principles as well, pretty much any governing system will be in one way or another. People abuse taxes, provide benefits to those who don't need them, that kind of stuff all the time. It's stupid, and needs tighter controls; it doesn't mean the system itself is broken, so much as it means that it requires tight controls to maintain. Some governing systems require tighter controls than are worth it though, such as communism... the level of dictatorship required to maintain a communist state is to the point that it's not really worth the effort invested.

    In any case, I just really want to try to clear up some of the silly misconceptions which abound by those who don't even know the definitions of the words they use.

  9. #99
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashtredi View Post
    Hi there, Would a new one like me be welcome here?
    Thanks so much in deed.
    __________________

    Electric adjustable beds prices and reviews
    Come on, you all didn't notice the spammer raise this thread from the dead?

    No wonder politics is so myopic!

Similar Threads

  1. Complain about me, please.
    By skylights in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 10:42 AM
  2. [INTP] Please list books by/about INTPs here
    By Salomé in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-25-2008, 04:05 PM
  3. Communes: What do you think about them?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 12:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO