Pali Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Whether it happened 500' date=' 1000, 1500, 2000, or 2500 years ago or more. Yes, in the end it had a lot to do with people working. Nobody just up and stumbled into clean water systems, indoor plumbing, and sanitary conditions.[/quote'] True, but people's desire to "work" or "not work" is far from all that influences whether a society will have these things. The Greeks and Romans didn't have plumbing just because they were harder workers than the Persians or Egyptians, and America's current status as superpower is not because Americans work harder than everybody else. There are MANY other factors involved, and many of them fall under Mali's statements regarding haves and have-nots. Re: Jibber You do recognize that how a country is perceived on the world stage is a VERY important thing, don't you? You do realize that owning up to past mistakes matters to people, don't you? I've yet to see/hear Obama say anything I'd consider anti-American... except that he's admitted that we've made mistakes as a country, and he's trying to repair the image we present to the rest of the world, which I guess some people think is anti-American because it's admitting that we're not the only important ones. And no. Obama is not a socialist. Look up what socialism actually is - it doesn't apply to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 You see what happens when you put a Texan in charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Voodoo Doll Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 True, but people's desire to "work" or "not work" is far from all that influences whether a society will have these things. The Greeks and Romans didn't have plumbing just because they were harder workers than the Persians or Egyptians, and America's current status as superpower is not because Americans work harder than everybody else. There are MANY other factors involved, and many of them fall under Mali's statements regarding haves and have-nots. Re: Jibber You do recognize that how a country is perceived on the world stage is a VERY important thing, don't you? You do realize that owning up to past mistakes matters to people, don't you? I've yet to see/hear Obama say anything I'd consider anti-American... except that he's admitted that we've made mistakes as a country, and he's trying to repair the image we present to the rest of the world, which I guess some people think is anti-American because it's admitting that we're not the only important ones. And no. Obama is not a socialist. Look up what socialism actually is - it doesn't apply to him. holy cow dude. wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 You've just redefined the meaning of liberal, Pali. Considering we're on separate ends of the spectrum, arguing with you or anyone else who stands like you, is pointless. So we agree to disagree. EDIT: Actually, I'm not letting anyone win that easily Obama -is- a socialist. Or, at least, defined as one, as per his actions, speeches, and what he wants for America. Now, I'll be quoting from a website that I'll post the link to, so no one really has to go to it: Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care. Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. His words here. The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries. The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen to Obama's promises to La Raza in 2007. The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory." The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.His words here. The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country. The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. I've looked up the definition, and determined and will stand by the statement I made earlier. Obama is a socialist. Plain, and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 No offense, but no one on this forum is physically able to discuss anything remotely racial without getting the thread locked. ;p I give it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Politics and religion, something that's not allowed to be discussed at my dinner table. Race, now that's something completely different. Because it's all in our heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Socialism is state ownership of industry. Nowhere has Obama advocated anything of the sort outside of the arena of health-care. Let me ask you... if you're against socialism in any form, how do you view our government-run non-profit police forces? We've had this socialist institution (one could call the service the government is providing here "security insurance") for centuries now. That the Socialist Party (which itself really isn't that socialist - we've redefined things a bit here in the US, and our political spectrum's a bit skewed) and Obama agree on certain things don't make him a socialist. I agree in varying respects with both Democrats and Republicans, but am neither. As for myself, I'm pretty much a secular libertarian. Socially liberal (so long as you're not trampling on another's rights, do/think what you want), fiscally conservative (I'm fine with spending where it's necessary, but not where it isn't - and I happen to often disagree with the Republican Party on where it is and is not necessary). I'm not a member of any party, nor do I vote terribly often (ironically, getting other people to vote is very valuable, but your own one vote means jack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 You're all weak! I'm totalitarian and one day, the sickle and hammer will rise again! Or is it the south...*mutters* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm not a member of any party' date=' nor do I vote terribly often (ironically, getting other people to vote is very valuable, but your own one vote means jack).[/quote'] So if you don't vote, your opinion means what again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cephirus Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 It is unfortunate to say that it matters if he actions would make him a socialist or not? WHO CARES? If he is helping to make our lives better for everyone, wants the same quality education for everyone, wants the same job security for everyone, wants to improve ourselves globally, what is the problem? I personally think it is because people are getting old and afraid of change (not entirely, but the point stands). Well, unfortunately change is here and we can only move forward. The thing to remember is that one, socialism is not communism. Socialism to me would mean a breakdown of further micro-organized societal structures within our communities. This means that instead of having large cities/towns, you would have within them smaller divisional structures responsible for working with each other to accomplish the tasks for the day (read jobs), help each other with the daily chores (read disposing of garbage, cleaning the streets, maintenance on the parks and homes within that area), and working with each other on future planning and development. I think that type of Socialism could very easily work for America. However, I realistically know that without a revolution, it will not happen. This would require those in the top 1% of the country (read monetarily) to give up their acquired money and power, which they certainly will not be willing to do, along with those lower than them. People seem to be afraid of letting go of the control they have or could potentially have over each other, like a chess game. The problem is they think that it is them vs. others at the table, in reality, it is humanity on one side of the board, and the end of our species existence at the other, and personally, I think we are in a tight spot. Our fresh water reserves are quickly depleting, when this happens, the value of water will greatly exceed any other resource. In the USA, people will begin to cluster around the great lakes, only further stripping away that resource until we drink it all up, then what? Living near one of the great lakes, I definitely plan on purchasing as much property as I can as quickly as I can to capitalize on this. I also have begun to get involved with UW-Milwaukee which has an excellent program specifically designed to target this specific growing threat, which is a fresh water science program. Unfortunately, there is only one other program like it (possibly in the world, but I know for sure only one other in the USA) which is in San Francisco. This is certainly more important than who is working, and who is not. If you want to get people to work, and in this case of America, that stereotype is generally tied to a certain race, then those of that race need to have a revolutionary change. Look at the despotic living conditions, lack of education, lack of good social structure that many of them are brought into the world in. If anyone no matter their color did not have any sort of familial background (many african americans know of their grandparents, possibly great-grandparents, but going beyond that to their further back ancestory, they have nothing, no basis for identity) were left in such a state, they would be just as hard pressed. Look at what surrounds a person for role models and the chances are great that that is what they will emulate. It is not necessarily what/who they see on TV, it is those in their daily lives that have an effect. So we turn to their teachers to give them the guiding hand and set the example, but this will not, cannot work. How can one teacher among a class of 30+ be expected to "be there" for each of those students? We need social change, we need a social revolution. We need to clean up our ghettos and give people places to live that they can take pride in, give counciling and require that everyone, no matter how old be contributing to society. If you don't want to do this, then you either have to go, or die, those are the options, no more pussyfooting around with lazy b.s, of I have worked all my life I deserve a break. Sorry, no breaks, no leisure cruises, no more you all work for me so I can enjoy my time on my butt sitting at a beach or wherever. This will create an environment where if people are contributing (and yes, everyone that is not paralyzed from the neck down can do something to contribute, if it is as simple as sewing clothes, blankets, teaching people, whatever it is, we could easily do this. Of course now the question arises, what do we do about those that are physically not able to do anything, being paralyzed and the like? Unfortunately, if there is no hope for them, then they have to go. We are meant to die, the strong and healthy live have to live on, while the sick and old have to die. This cycle is unquestionably evident in nature, yet we desire to defy nature, and we will loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 It is unfortunate to say that it matters if he actions would make him a socialist or not? WHO CARES? If he is helping to make our lives better for everyone, wants the same quality education for everyone, wants the same job security for everyone, wants to improve ourselves globally, what is the problem? I personally think it is because people are getting old and afraid of change (not entirely, but the point stands). Well, unfortunately change is here and we can only move forward. The thing to remember is that one, socialism is not communism. Socialism to me would mean a breakdown of further micro-organized societal structures within our communities. This means that instead of having large cities/towns, you would have within them smaller divisional structures responsible for working with each other to accomplish the tasks for the day (read jobs), help each other with the daily chores (read disposing of garbage, cleaning the streets, maintenance on the parks and homes within that area), and working with each other on future planning and development. I think that type of Socialism could very easily work for America. However, I realistically know that without a revolution, it will not happen. This would require those in the top 1% of the country (read monetarily) to give up their acquired money and power, which they certainly will not be willing to do, along with those lower than them. People seem to be afraid of letting go of the control they have or could potentially have over each other, like a chess game. The problem is they think that it is them vs. others at the table, in reality, it is humanity on one side of the board, and the end of our species existence at the other, and personally, I think we are in a tight spot. Our fresh water reserves are quickly depleting, when this happens, the value of water will greatly exceed any other resource. In the USA, people will begin to cluster around the great lakes, only further stripping away that resource until we drink it all up, then what? Living near one of the great lakes, I definitely plan on purchasing as much property as I can as quickly as I can to capitalize on this. I also have begun to get involved with UW-Milwaukee which has an excellent program specifically designed to target this specific growing threat, which is a fresh water science program. Unfortunately, there is only one other program like it (possibly in the world, but I know for sure only one other in the USA) which is in San Francisco. This is certainly more important than who is working, and who is not. If you want to get people to work, and in this case of America, that stereotype is generally tied to a certain race, then those of that race need to have a revolutionary change. Look at the despotic living conditions, lack of education, lack of good social structure that many of them are brought into the world in. If anyone no matter their color did not have any sort of familial background (many african americans know of their grandparents, possibly great-grandparents, but going beyond that to their further back ancestory, they have nothing, no basis for identity) were left in such a state, they would be just as hard pressed. Look at what surrounds a person for role models and the chances are great that that is what they will emulate. It is not necessarily what/who they see on TV, it is those in their daily lives that have an effect. So we turn to their teachers to give them the guiding hand and set the example, but this will not, cannot work. How can one teacher among a class of 30+ be expected to "be there" for each of those students? We need social change, we need a social revolution. We need to clean up our ghettos and give people places to live that they can take pride in, give counciling and require that everyone, no matter how old be contributing to society. If you don't want to do this, then you either have to go, or die, those are the options, no more pussyfooting around with lazy b.s, of I have worked all my life I deserve a break. Sorry, no breaks, no leisure cruises, no more you all work for me so I can enjoy my time on my butt sitting at a beach or wherever. This will create an environment where if people are contributing (and yes, everyone that is not paralyzed from the neck down can do something to contribute, if it is as simple as sewing clothes, blankets, teaching people, whatever it is, we could easily do this. Of course now the question arises, what do we do about those that are physically not able to do anything, being paralyzed and the like? Unfortunately, if there is no hope for them, then they have to go. We are meant to die, the strong and healthy live have to live on, while the sick and old have to die. This cycle is unquestionably evident in nature, yet we desire to defy nature, and we will loose. yep, probably didn't break that up in the right spots for you, but, dude, I'm not reading block letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Voodoo Doll Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 It is unfortunate to say that it matters if he actions would make him a socialist or not? WHO CARES? If he is helping to make our lives better for everyone' date=' wants the same quality education for everyone, wants the same job security for everyone, wants to improve ourselves globally, what is the problem? I personally think it is because people are getting old and afraid of change (not entirely, but the point stands). Well, unfortunately change is here and we can only move forward. The thing to remember is that one, socialism is not communism. Socialism to me would mean a breakdown of further micro-organized societal structures within our communities. This means that instead of having large cities/towns, you would have within them smaller divisional structures responsible for working with each other to accomplish the tasks for the day (read jobs), help each other with the daily chores (read disposing of garbage, cleaning the streets, maintenance on the parks and homes within that area), and working with each other on future planning and development. I think that type of Socialism could very easily work for America. However, I realistically know that without a revolution, it will not happen. This would require those in the top 1% of the country (read monetarily) to give up their acquired money and power, which they certainly will not be willing to do, along with those lower than them. People seem to be afraid of letting go of the control they have or could potentially have over each other, like a chess game. The problem is they think that it is them vs. others at the table, in reality, it is humanity on one side of the board, and the end of our species existence at the other, and personally, I think we are in a tight spot. Our fresh water reserves are quickly depleting, when this happens, the value of water will greatly exceed any other resource. In the USA, people will begin to cluster around the great lakes, only further stripping away that resource until we drink it all up, then what? Living near one of the great lakes, I definitely plan on purchasing as much property as I can as quickly as I can to capitalize on this. I also have begun to get involved with UW-Milwaukee which has an excellent program specifically designed to target this specific growing threat, which is a fresh water science program. Unfortunately, there is only one other program like it (possibly in the world, but I know for sure only one other in the USA) which is in San Francisco. This is certainly more important than who is working, and who is not. If you want to get people to work, and in this case of America, that stereotype is generally tied to a certain race, then those of that race need to have a revolutionary change. Look at the despotic living conditions, lack of education, lack of good social structure that many of them are brought into the world in. If anyone no matter their color did not have any sort of familial background (many african americans know of their grandparents, possibly great-grandparents, but going beyond that to their further back ancestory, they have nothing, no basis for identity) were left in such a state, they would be just as hard pressed. Look at what surrounds a person for role models and the chances are great that that is what they will emulate. It is not necessarily what/who they see on TV, it is those in their daily lives that have an effect. So we turn to their teachers to give them the guiding hand and set the example, but this will not, cannot work. How can one teacher among a class of 30+ be expected to "be there" for each of those students? We need social change, we need a social revolution. We need to clean up our ghettos and give people places to live that they can take pride in, give counciling and require that everyone, no matter how old be contributing to society. If you don't want to do this, then you either have to go, or die, those are the options, no more pussyfooting around with lazy b.s, of I have worked all my life I deserve a break. Sorry, no breaks, no leisure cruises, no more you all work for me so I can enjoy my time on my butt sitting at a beach or wherever. This will create an environment where if people are contributing (and yes, everyone that is not paralyzed from the neck down can do [u']something to contribute, if it is as simple as sewing clothes, blankets, teaching people, whatever it is, we could easily do this. Of course now the question arises, what do we do about those that are physically not able to do anything, being paralyzed and the like? Unfortunately, if there is no hope for them, then they have to go. We are meant to die, the strong and healthy live have to live on, while the sick and old have to die. This cycle is unquestionably evident in nature, yet we desire to defy nature, and we will loose. reserving space for when i get a moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 So if you don't vote' date=' your opinion means what again? [/quote'] About as much as it does when I do vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Ah, so you're one of those people who refuse to buy a lotto ticket because "your odds of winning are impossible". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Ah' date=' so you're one of those people who refuse to buy a lotto ticket because "your odds of winning are impossible".[/quote'] I've bought lotto tickets for the fun of it, but never with any expectation of hitting a jackpot, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Pali, you are the man but you should drop your disillusioned and self-deprecating belief about the worth of your vote. Your vote does matter. Frank Zappa and I urge you to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-A Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think my statement was more applicable on a global scale. Take for example the issue of access to clean water and sanitary living conditions. As more people enter the world and water restrictions become tighter and tighter' date=' I predict that those who [b']have money, connections, or belong to a certain "human racial group" will make a move against those who have no money, connections, or those who belong to a different "human racial group". This situation will likely replay itself in several different places across the globe, and some would argue it has already. It has nothing to do with people working or not working. Unless we can conserve water resources, lower the birthrates in developing countries, work against racial identification, and use what skills we have to help people help themselves... then all bets are off for what horrors the future may hold. Replacing clean water and sanitary living withoil reserves I believe would given an interesting perspectdive on world events in the last six to eight years. Too bad we can't easily release the world from oil reliance - in part because those with oil won't let it happen and wield a terrifying amount of power that can and is used for their interests alone. L-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I absolutely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Let me ask you... if you're against socialism in any form, how do you view our government-run non-profit police forces? We've had this socialist institution (one could call the service the government is providing here "security insurance") for centuries now. Police power is authorized by both federal and state constitutions. Federally governed education, energy, healthcare, etc is not a given power of the constitution, nor should it be. That is what we call statism, the exact opposite of libertarianism. As for myself, I'm pretty much a secular libertarian. Socially liberal (so long as you're not trampling on another's rights, do/think what you want), fiscally conservative (I'm fine with spending where it's necessary, but not where it isn't - and I happen to often disagree with the Republican Party on where it is and is not necessary). I'm not a member of any party, nor do I vote terribly often (ironically, getting other people to vote is very valuable, but your own one vote means jack). I don't think fiscally conservative means what you think it means. You support Obama and universal healthcare, from what I gather, which is pretty much at ends with everything a libertarian supports. I'm also going to go ahead and chuckle about any remarks about Obama having to apologize for America. Even if I thought there was something to apologize for (which I don't), this is the same man who thought it was a good idea to give a box of region 1 dvd's to the UK Prime Minister, after receiving a priceless heirloom. Seriously. Too bad we can't easily release the world from oil reliance - in part because those with oil won't let it happen and wield a terrifying amount of power that can and is used for their interests alone. Hate to break it to you, but everyone uses their power (how ever much that is) in pursuit of their own interests. Its human nature, and its why true capitalism works as well as it does. Oil is going to be around for quite a while, its just a matter of where you get it from and how costly it is to extract. If you think someone is making ridiculous amounts of money off of it, invest in their company. Be part of those profits. Chances are you will be disappointed by how little they do make compared to companies in other industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Inscribed, I really do not care what labels my political views are given by people - my apologies if I used the wrong ones, but political philosophy isn't one of my hobbies. However, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions." I see nothing in there that I disagree with. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty." Again - I see nothing I disagree with. You seemed to miss the entire point behind my mentioning of the police - it doesn't matter where their authority is given to them, whether by a constitution or a legislative body. They remain, in essence, a socialist institution (run by the government, owned by and answerable to the people, and ideally with a nonexistent profit motive). Fire departments, public utilities, public schools, public construction work, international defense... all of these are also areas that the government provides us services in. Why? Because without the government doing them, we'd feel no need to have it at all - providing such services is the government's job, why it exists in the first place. I simply think that certain services should be added to the list of what the government should be expected to provide, and a bit of re-prioritizing of its current services needs to be done (for example, I'd love to see military spending cut back - I see no reason that this country needs to be spending more than the rest of the planet on its military). And yes, I do think that this country has done many things that it should apologize for. We don't rule the world. Nobody elected us the world's police or moral authority, and I think that in many instances we have overstepped our bounds on what we should do to influence the social and political development of other countries. However, I will freely agree that the region 1 DVDs were pretty funny. I'm hardly defending all of Obama's decisions here... there are a lot he's made thus far that I strongly disagree with. But I do recognize the symbol that his presidency is both within and outside of the USA, and the value of that symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Voodoo Doll Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 But I do recognize the symbol that his presidency is both within and outside of the USA' date=' and the value of that symbol.[/quote'] which is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 which is? Something about hope and progress and the US demasculating itself. Something like that anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 which is? That America doesn't think of itself as perfect and can admit its wrongdoings. That America isn't just a nation of rich white Bible-bashers. That America wants to work with and be a partner to the world rather than exploit and control the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 That America doesn't think of itself as perfect and can admit its wrongdoings. That America isn't just a nation of rich white Bible-bashers. That America wants to work with and be a partner to the world rather than exploit and control the world. Pali is referring to SOUTH America of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Pali is referring to the United States of America of course. Fixed that for ya buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.