PDA

View Full Version : Carter says Obama row is 'racist'


Mad Tony
16-09-09, 08:49
Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

Mr Carter told a town-hall meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".
Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson was rebuked on Tuesday in a House vote.
He shouted "You lie!" while Mr Obama was delivering an address on healthcare to Congress last Wednesday.

The House resolution of disapproval described it as "a breach of decorum".
But Mr Wilson's eldest son, Alan, has denied racism was a factor in his father's outburst.

Some conservatives have accused the president's supporters of playing the race card.

'Abominable'

Angry town hall meetings and a recent taxpayers' demonstration in Washington have been vitriolic towards the president, reports the BBC's Americas editor Mark Mardell.

Many have not just protested against the president's policies but have accused him of tyranny, and have promised to "reclaim America".

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national programme on health care," Mr Carter said at a town hall meeting at his Carter Center in Atlanta held prior to the Congress vote on Tuesday.

"It's deeper than that."

Responding to a question specifically on Mr Wilson's outburst, he said Mr Obama was the head of state as well as the head of government and - like heads of state elsewhere, such as the Queen of England - he should be "treated with respect".

It was a "dastardly thing to do", he said.

His comments were rejected by Joe Wilson's son, Alan, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general in Georgia.

"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," he said.

Apology

In Tuesday's vote, lawmakers voted 240-179 in favour of the resolution to censure Mr Wilson.

The move was backed by most Democrats, but dismissed by many Republicans as a distraction from more serious issues.

"My goodness, we could be doing this every day of the week," said Republican Minority Leader John Boehner.

But Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer insisted that Mr Wilson's outburst could not be ignored.

"At issue is whether we are able to proceed with a degree of civility and decorum that our rules and our democracy contemplate and require," he said.

Mr Wilson himself maintained that his personal apology to Mr Obama should have been enough to resolve the matter.

Mr Obama "graciously accepted my apology and the issue is over", he said.
Mr Wilson's remark came in response to a passage of Mr Obama's speech in which he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for federal subsidies to buy health coverage.

Experts concur that under the terms of Mr Obama's reform package undocumented immigrants would not be able to claim healthcare subsidies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8258011.stm

I've heard this argument before but not from former presidents! I knew Carter was an idiot, but I didn't think he was this stupid. Most Republicans have always disagreed with universal healthcare and high spending, why are they suddenly racist now just because there's an African American in office?

American politics would be much more interesting if there was debate instead of just Democrats branding people who oppose Obama as racists.

scoopy_loopy
16-09-09, 10:20
:rolleyes: Oh please. Could American politics get more pathetic?

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 10:20
Probably not until the Dems stop playing the race card. :p

Punaxe
16-09-09, 10:22
Probably not until the Dems stop playing the race card. :p

How about we agree on "probably not until both parties stop with the attacks and honestly and rationally discuss the issues on the table"?

scoopy_loopy
16-09-09, 10:23
Or how about, they abolish the ****ty two party system? :p

Johnnay
16-09-09, 10:25
if only Americas healthcare was like here in Australia.:) medicare sucks as well

scoopy_loopy
16-09-09, 10:26
Australian health care is pretty good actually...


But if you're 'povo' as Ja'mie would put it, and on the public system, you're ****ed if you ever need hospitalisation.

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 10:26
How about we agree on "probably not until both parties stop with the attacks and honestly and rationally discuss the issues on the table"?I agree both parties have been engaged in pointless bickering but this takes it to a whole new level of stupidity.

Some people are accusing Joe Wilson of being racist. Why? Rude yes, but racist no. I fail to see how shouting out "You lie!" is a racist remark. Absolutely pathetic. I just hope to God that if we ever get a black prime minister over here all this **** doesn't start.

Or how about, they abolish the ****ty two party system? :pThere are more than two parties, it's just the only two parties that have any kind of significant popularity are the Democrats and the Republicans. If people wanted a third party they'd vote them into office.

Dennis's Mom
16-09-09, 13:16
I don't think you can discount the effect of racism. For every person like myself who subscribes to the "folks is folks" belief, there is still someone who believes that *insert race here* people are intrinsically and substantially different in their wants and needs, and that serving those needs is their number one priority.

Google the "Atlanta mayoral race 2009 memo" if you don't believe me.

Paddy
16-09-09, 13:20
if only Americas healthcare was like here in Australia.:) medicare sucks as well

You should never complain about our healthcare, I dont think its that bad, plus at least we are fortunate enough people to even have resources like this. Others out there arent so lucky.

interstellardave
16-09-09, 13:27
You can't silence critics by saying "racism"... no way. Carter is completely wrong to say this. It sets a very bad precedent... now anyone that opposes Obama on anything can be suspected of, or outright accused of, racism? Nice way to completely shut down important debate!

stereopathic
16-09-09, 13:49
i think part of the reason obama faces the unprecendented level of public criticism that he does is because of his race. of course no one's going to actually say, "obama sucks because he's black," but there is a lot of mindless hate of the president out there. not on this forum, as those who oppose him often give solid reasoning for why they do, but i see it in public and on the news everyday.

it's wrong to lay a blanket accusation down that everyone opposes obama is racist, as it is equally wrong to say that everyone who opposes him is not. i did most of my growing up smack in the middle of white kid suburbia, and i spent years trying to convince my friends not to drop the n-bomb, or that just because a black guy drives a mercedes benz, it doesn't mean he's a drug dealer.

and these are your everyday, run-of-the-mill polo-shirt-khaki guys with college degrees and nice-paying jobs. they would've never said this stuff in front of strangers, but with each other they had no problem talking **** about blacks and mexicans. absolute and total closet racists. now they all oppose obama to a man, and it certainly leaves me wondering if it's just because he's black.

interstellardave
16-09-09, 14:02
I don't care about regular everyday morons... you can find many such black racists too, BTW.

I care about a former president saying this. To be honest it doesn't even matter if some people oppose Obama because he's black... you can weed those people out easily by their lack of a cogent argument during debate. A former president making sweeping accusations in public casts a shadow over anyone that opposes Obama for any reason.

It gives Obama supporters the ability to shout "racist" if they choose to try to silence opposition through intimidation. And it further fuels racial tensions between blacks and whites--both groups of which have racists among them just looking to keep the battle going.

stereopathic
16-09-09, 14:17
carter saying that joe wilson's behavior was motivated by racism is totally ridiculous. but when he says "many" oppose obama because he's black, well, that's a fair statement.

it's true that people will use carter's words as justification for screaming "racist," just as racists rallied behind wilson's behavior. each side is just looking for a reason to speak out, whether it's right or not.

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 15:05
i think part of the reason obama faces the unprecendented level of public criticism that he does is because of his raceBut does he though? Obama has faced far less criticism than Bush ever did, both in the US and certainly outside of the US. I get the impression that a lot of Obama's supporters feel as though they have to brand the opposition as racists simply because they can't accept the opposition's point of view, therefore race must have something to do with it.

It's just like, as soon as you say one bad thing about Obama people have already made their minds up that you're a racist. In the past I've often been weary on giving an opinion on him (in real life) because some people feel that Obama's race means that he should be immune from criticism.

The only thing wrong with Obama being black is that his supporters will often use his race to their advantage and try to discredit opposition.

Mona Sax
16-09-09, 15:19
One would think people could discuss a rather dry issue like health care with a certain amount of dignity and civility, though. I don't mean Joe Wilson here - his remark only showcased his lack of knowledgeability and manners, I don't see any racist connotation - I'm talking about many of the townhall meetings. Like it or not, racism is still a huge problem... not only in America, but everywhere.

stereopathic
16-09-09, 15:31
But does he though? Obama has faced far less criticism than Bush ever did, both in the US and certainly outside of the US. I get the impression that a lot of Obama's supporters feel as though they have to brand the opposition as racists simply because they can't accept the opposition's point of view, therefore race must have something to do with it.

It's just like, as soon as you say one bad thing about Obama people have already made their minds up that you're a racist. In the past I've often been weary on giving an opinion on him (in real life) because some people feel that Obama's race means that he should be immune from criticism.

The only thing wrong with Obama being black is that his supporters will often use his race to their advantage and try to discredit opposition.

i honestly think he does face more sinister criticism than bush did. as of the first september 10th in both presidencies, no one had tried so hard to label bush a "failure" or a "nazi" even though their respective approval ratings are pretty close to one another. the abuse bush took in his second term, certainly rivals what obama faces now but at the very least, bush was given some time to prove himself, while the first accusations of failure hit obama before his first 100 days were up.

now that's not to say that those people calling obama a nazi (mainly about the healthcare plan) are all racist, and i disagree with carter saying something along those lines. this is a right-of-center country and obama has some pretty radical liberal ideals. some people are scared by where that might take us, although the nazi comparison is unjustified. if the worse thing the nazis ever did was their healthcare plan, then nazi wouldn't be such a bad word. those people are unfairly trying to attach the horrors of the holocaust to the healthcare plan. but i digress.

and people like yourself should be able to speak out about obama without fear of being labelled a racist. that's just as unfair as someone calling him a nazi. the quick-draw race card is not only dangerous to play, but it dilutes the real cries of racism out there that actually require our attention.

it's a narrow line to walk here. racists obviously do not approve of obama, but it's not fair to call someone a racist unless they prove themselves to be one. merely disliking the president's policies certainly doesn't qualify and, just like during any other presidency, people who disapprove of the president should be allowed to speak their minds without fear.

i suppose this has a lot to do with covering new ground with the first black man in office. no one's really adept at navigating the territory yet. lots of clumsiness and missteps going on, on both sides of the aisle.

SamReeves
16-09-09, 15:40
Jimmy Carter…hmmm

What did he say? :D

interstellardave
16-09-09, 15:46
Obama is facing great criticism in part because he's trying to push major projects at a rapid-fire pace; spending more money than Bush ever spent, and growing goverment even more than it has been grown over the past decades. I think a lot of people would like to slow this whole thing down. It's too much, too fast, and I think many would like this to be discussed a whole lot more... while Obama and any of his supporters who've wanted these programs for years are all too eager to push it through as fast as possible.

Tear
16-09-09, 15:50
:rolleyes: I have nothing to say...

SamReeves
16-09-09, 15:53
I'm still waiting for my cash for taxpayers program. Where's that? ;)

Mona Sax
16-09-09, 16:23
I'm still waiting for my cash for taxpayers program. Where's that? ;)
Go 'convince' a Wall Street suit to give you a bonus. You have my blessing. ;)

interstellardave
16-09-09, 17:01
I don't work on Wall Street but I just got a bonus... :D

Dina_Croft
16-09-09, 17:10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8258011.stm

http://i25.************/1zwnbll.jpg

Epic Fail:vlol:

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 17:42
Err, what exactly are you calling an "epic fail?" Jimmy Carter's statement? I'm pretty sure he meant to say what he said. :confused:

Lee croft
16-09-09, 17:50
Health care should be free like here in England.

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 17:54
Health care should be free like here in England.Healthcare isn't free here.

Lee croft
16-09-09, 17:57
healthcare isn't free here.

nhs

interstellardave
16-09-09, 17:59
nhs

Taxes.

Lee croft
16-09-09, 18:03
Taxes.

I know that but its not what i meant it should be run differently like the NHS

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 18:16
I know that but its not what i meant it should be run differently like the NHSIt's still not free though.

The problem with universal healthcare is that it's government run and everyone has to pay for it - even if they don't use it or don't use it very often. So in the end you get some people who pay way more than their fair share into it because they don't use it very often and others who use it a lot but still pay the same amount as other who use it far less.

Punaxe
16-09-09, 18:57
It's still not free though.

The problem with universal healthcare is that it's government run and everyone has to pay for it - even if they don't use it or don't use it very often. So in the end you get some people who pay way more than their fair share into it because they don't use it very often and others who use it a lot but still pay the same amount as other who use it far less.

Doesn't have to be like that. Here, everyone pays a certain minimum amount of insurance (most of which the government can pay for you if you can't), but you can insure more on top of that if you want. This insurance is ran by private companies who are free to compete, as long as they at least offer legally set minimum coverage. Just to illustrate that there are different ways of achieving "universal" healthcare. The government makes it mandatory to have insurance, and of course sets strict quality regulations, but that's about it.

Also I think it needs to be mentioned that I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not you use it or how much: nobody wants to use it, but everyone pays for the certainty that everything will be taken care of just in case. I think this in itself is value enough.

Mad Tony
16-09-09, 18:58
Doesn't have to be like that. Here, everyone pays a certain minimum amount of insurance (most of which the government can pay for you if you can't), but you can insure more on top of that if you want. This insurance is ran by private companies who are free to compete, as long as they at least offer legally set minimum coverage. Just to illustrate that there are different ways of achieving "universal" healthcare. The government makes it mandatory to have insurance, and of course sets strict quality regulations, but that's about it.

Also I think it needs to be mentioned that I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not you use it or how much: nobody wants to use it, but everyone pays for the certainty that everything will be taken care of just in case. I think this in itself is value enough.Well, I still don't like the idea but it sounds a lot better than what we have here.

stereopathic
16-09-09, 19:09
Doesn't have to be like that. Here, everyone pays a certain minimum amount of insurance (most of which the government can pay for you if you can't), but you can insure more on top of that if you want. This insurance is ran by private companies who are free to compete, as long as they at least offer legally set minimum coverage. Just to illustrate that there are different ways of achieving "universal" healthcare. The government makes it mandatory to have insurance, and of course sets strict quality regulations, but that's about it.

Also I think it needs to be mentioned that I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not you use it or how much: nobody wants to use it, but everyone pays for the certainty that everything will be taken care of just in case. I think this in itself is value enough.

how is the quality of care there? the doctors i've discussed nationalized/universal healthcare with here in america mention that there would be no way they would have become a doctor in that system. they cite that many of them are $100K in debt by the time they finish medical school and that they couldn't afford that with what they would be paid in that system (which they say would be 1/3 or less of what they make now).

so, sure they want to help people, i don't want them to sound like all they care about is money. but as they are all smart cookies, they say they would have most likely found more lucrative ways to do that (law, business, whatever).

how have they addressed that (potential) problem there?

Punaxe
16-09-09, 19:15
how is the quality of care there? the doctors i've discussed nationalized healthcare with here in america mention that there would be no way they would have become a doctor in that system. they cite that many of them are $100K in debt by the time they finish medical school and that they couldn't afford that with what they would be paid in that system (which they say would be 1/3 or less of what they make now).

so, sure they want to help people, i don't want them to sound like all they care about is money. but as they are all smart cookies, they say they would have most likely found more lucrative ways to do that (law, business, whatever).

how have they addressed that (potential) problem there?

Education is not as expensive here as it is overthere. The government pays a pretty good sum of financial aid that you don't have to repay if you graduate (but do if you don't), and additional money is easily borrowed at lenient student rates. I don't know the prices of medical schools overthere, but if it's similar to the US universities I've considered myself, the difference is about $20-30K per year (less). Becoming a medical specialist will easily take you more than 10 years, which would not be doable at those US university rates but is no problem overhere, even if you don't have any money to start with. I don't know how much the many different kinds of doctors make, but I'm pretty sure it's a very decent sum. Most are self-employed. The only medical specialist I know makes about 100K per year.

takamotosan
16-09-09, 21:13
UGH. Stupid. :hea:

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 00:31
Jimmy Carter is calling someone racist for a blatantly non-racist comment? :vlol: I'm pretty sure I've heard Carter say some racist things in the past so who is he to accuse someone else of hidden motives?

Doesn't have to be like that. Here, everyone pays a certain minimum amount of insurance (most of which the government can pay for you if you can't), but you can insure more on top of that if you want. This insurance is ran by private companies who are free to compete, as long as they at least offer legally set minimum coverage. Just to illustrate that there are different ways of achieving "universal" healthcare. The government makes it mandatory to have insurance, and of course sets strict quality regulations, but that's about it.

Also I think it needs to be mentioned that I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not you use it or how much: nobody wants to use it, but everyone pays for the certainty that everything will be taken care of just in case. I think this in itself is value enough.

If I understand that correctly, it sounds like your system actually has a lot less government involvement than ours in the US. Here the insurance companies are so strictly regulated by the government that they cannot operate freely according to what makes the most sense and what people want. That's one of the main reasons why our healthcare system has these problems. I think another is the abuse of the ability to sue because so many hospitals and doctors get sued for ridiculously huge amounts of money for something that wasn't really their fault. Does your country allow lawsuits like this? Or are there any kind of restrictions on lawsuits? (For example, only being able to sue for actual damages, not for a huge punitive sum).

In any case, I definitely think that what you described is much better than Obama's proposed plan, and it might be better than what we've got now too.

Lemmie
17-09-09, 00:48
I find this issue of racism that surrounds Obama quite interesting. He's been accused of not doing enough for his own race - or his father's race at least.

I think Obama's election as president was supposed to herald an end to a racially divided society in America - I think this summer demonstrated the opposite. Not only due to the uproar (this is the impression I get of it) over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court, but also because of Obama's boycotting the UN Durban Review Conference on racism - known as "Durban II".

(Haven't heard of Durban I? A couple of days after it finished, 9/11 happened - completely overshadowing the conference.)

This article from the Guardian -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/sep/12/barack-obama-the-race-question-naomi-klein

details the lead-up to Durban I and the issues that are still unresolved for black communities all over the world.

miss.haggard
17-09-09, 00:55
Probably not until the Dems stop playing the race card. :p

mmmhmm. Cant say nutin' bout Obams with the good ol' race card being pulled.

Kittypower
17-09-09, 00:59
There not racist, just simple minded(a good portion of the teabaggers atleast). Holding up signs comparing obama to hitler or calling him a communist isnt helping there case. But i doubt race is the reason why there opposse the president.

By the way, i think carter is a very smart man. Just a terrible president.

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 01:01
I find this issue of racism that surrounds Obama quite interesting. He's been accused of not doing enough for his own race - or his father's race at least.

I guess I can see that a little bit, or at least how it could be spun that way. For example, I think if he supported school vouchers that would go a hell of a long way towards helping poor children (including poor black children) to get a good education. However, he strictly opposes vouchers, so how come Obama's kids get to go to the best private schools in the country but he won't help poor inner-city black children to escape a failing public school? So yeah, I guess it could be spun into a race issue if someone really wanted to do that.

But really, I don't think it's an issue of race at all. I think the real issue is his politics and his seeming hatred of "the rich." Someone asked him once that if he knew for a fact his increased taxes on "the rich" would hurt the economy and increase unemployment would he still do it? He replied that yes he would because it's not fair for rich people to have more money. Instead of trying to build everybody up and provide everybody with the opportunity to become rich, it's like he wants to tear everybody down to the lowest level so that we're all equal in that respect. He calls that being fair but I really don't think it is fair at all. His policies don't benefit anybody, which includes people of all races. I think it's a mistake to focus upon whether or not he's helping any one particular race because he should be helping everybody.

irjudd
17-09-09, 01:06
...Someone asked him once that if he knew for a fact his increased taxes on "the rich" would hurt the economy and increase unemployment would he still do it? He replied that yes he would because it's not fair for rich people to have more money. Instead of trying to build everybody up and provide everybody with the opportunity to become rich, it's like he wants to tear everybody down to the lowest level so that we're all equal in that respect. He calls that being fair but I really don't think it is fair at all. His policies don't benefit anybody, which includes people of all races. I think it's a mistake to focus upon whether or not he's helping any one particular race because he should be helping everybody.
Cue my mandatory entrance with a reply to you requesting a reference for this part.
Mostly because that sounds like such a bold thing to say and I'd never read about it before.

Uzi master
17-09-09, 01:19
Well I'm glad I'm in Canada with goood healthcare, I find the U.S. a little unstable, no one seems to agree on anything and whenever someone says something bad about Obama it turns into a big contraversy...

( off topic but why does the U.S. call themselves america its not like there the only ones in north and south America :p)

irjudd
17-09-09, 01:21
( off topic but why does the U.S. call themselves america its not like there the only ones in north and south America :p)
By "the U.S." do you mean the country or the people? Because I don't say "america", but usually "the US".

EmeraldFields
17-09-09, 01:21
Well I'm glad I'm in Canada with goood healthcare, I find the U.S. a little unstable, no one seems to agree on anything and whenever someone says something bad about Obama it turns into a big contraversy...

( off topic but why does the U.S. call themselves america its not like there the only ones in north and south America :p)

I guess it's just faster to say "America" instead of "United States of America".:p

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 01:23
Cue my mandatory entrance with a reply to you requesting a reference for this part.
Mostly because that sounds like such a bold thing to say and I'd never read about it before.

I'm ready for ya :p

WpSDBu35K-8

Lemmie
17-09-09, 01:23
I guess it's just faster to say "America" instead of "United States of America".:p

Well, people say UK rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. :D

US or USA works for me.

irjudd
17-09-09, 01:27
Hmm, I might be daft, but I wasn't able to interpret what I heard in that video to mean what you are using it as a reference for.

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 01:29
Hmm, I might be daft, but I wasn't able to interpret what I heard in that video to mean what you are using it as a reference for.

Really? The guy says in the past, raising the capitol gains taxes decreases government revenue so why does Obama want to raise those taxes, and then Obama says "For purposes of fairness" and goes off into some spiel about how it's not fair for a rich guy to have a lower tax rate on his stocks than a middle-class person has on wages.

irjudd
17-09-09, 01:31
Right, I got that part. But where does "decreasing government revenue" equate to injuring the economy and increasing unemployment?

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 01:34
Right, I got that part. But where does "decreasing government revenue" equate to injuring the economy and increasing unemployment?

Alright, maybe I extrapolated a bit much (if government revenue from capital gains tax is down, then that means people aren't investing as much as they were before which means that the economy isn't doing as good, and when the economy isn't doing as good then unemployment increases). I didn't think too much about how I phrased it because my main point was that Obama is completely willing to do something that hurts the country (decrease government revenue if you don't like my inferences) just because he wants to get back at the evil rich people and make things "fair" so that everybody is suffering equally.

Uzi master
17-09-09, 01:38
well why can't he just lower taxes for other people and not raise them? cutting in arent I?

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 01:38
well why can't he just lower taxes for other people and not raise them? cutting in arent I?

That makes perfect sense to me :D

knightgames
17-09-09, 01:48
Obama is facing great criticism in part because he's trying to push major projects at a rapid-fire pace; spending more money than Bush ever spent, and growing goverment even more than it has been grown over the past decades. I think a lot of people would like to slow this whole thing down. It's too much, too fast, and I think many would like this to be discussed a whole lot more... while Obama and any of his supporters who've wanted these programs for years are all too eager to push it through as fast as possible.

Sadly it's the idiots that paint Hitlerian mustashes on Obama who get the notoriety, and thus sully the opposition to the President's plans. There are many good reasons to slow down the progress of what he is trying to do. To go forth in such a steam rolling fashion will not help anyone.

Who'd have thought 30 years ago when Barney Frank tried to change the lending practices that the eventual outcome would be what we experienced last year? Did he cause that meltdown? No. But lack of forethought and obvious oversights by both parties allowed human greed to control what happened. So while his intentions were good the final outcome was pretty disasterous to the worlds economy. Same can be said for Carter's lessening restrictions on Credit Cards.

It is that sort of introspection that these policies President Obama is trying to push through needs. We all remember President Bush saying we need to move quikly on Iraq or wlse we'll have mushroom clouds. Had more individuals said WHOAH! Hold on there. We may not be encrusted where we are now.

I feel President Obama is using scare tactics to a point. Instead of mushroom clouds it's economic bankruptsy. We need to really take the time to examine thse bills and determine the outcome 10 - 20 - 30 years from now.

The way I see it now President Obama is betting that his bills will help the economy based on an economic turn around that my not happen as he hopes. In which case we certainly won't be better off and possibly much worse. Putting us in debt to the tune of 10 trillion dollars based on an economic hope requires steadfast examination.

Those who portray stupidity on both sides do no service to themselves, their country, the world and obviscates the issues we're facing now.


Those are the issues. NOT his skin colour. The media needs to balance their coverage of the real concerns of President Obama's platform verses their coverage of the stupid.

irjudd
17-09-09, 01:49
Alright, maybe I extrapolated a bit much (if government revenue from capitol gains tax is down, then that means people aren't investing as much as they were before which means that the economy isn't doing as good, and when the economy isn't doing as good then unemployment increases). I didn't think too much about how I phrased it because my main point was that Obama is completely willing to do something that hurts the country (decrease government revenue if you don't like my inferences) just because he wants to get back at the evil rich people and make things "fair" so that everybody is suffering equally.
Now I get where you're coming from. Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 02:01
Now I get where you're coming from. Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

You're welcome :) I try to be clear in my posts, but sometimes I make a throw-away comment that isn't my main focus and then when someone asks what I meant, I realize that there were several layers of my convoluted thought processes in between what I was thinking of and what I typed :o

SpaceChild
17-09-09, 03:35
This is the stuff of high comedy - Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite extraordinaire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html) and the exact same Jimmy Carter who last year referred to Obama as a "black boy," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69GSIjUZ3RM) is accusing...basically everybody who dares oppose Obama's political policies...of being a "racist." Yeah, you read that right. (Acch...achhh...proJECTION! Sneeze - 'sorry.)

According to the rules of logic, the burden of proof lies with he who makes the positive assertion. In this case Democrat-Socialists like Carter, his apologizers wherever they are, and the rest of those in politics who've echoed his assertion, have utterly failed the obligation to prove that assertion.

Ironically, given the fixation on race that his blanket smear implies, one could argue that the accusation itself is racist - even ignoring Carter's own sordid history of open bigotry.

One does not have to watch American politics for long before a comic-tragic pattern becomes apparent: every time a Democrat-Socialist Party member (or any random, vestigial Leftist) runs out of a valid argument in support of his agenda, he flops onto the classic Ad Hominem fallacy. Just like clockwork.

In short, the arbitrary, floating assertion that "people oppose Obama because of his race," is nothing more than the schoolyard epithet "You're a big fat STUPID! NYAH!" - expanded to the world stage and shot up with steroids. If the overtones weren't so corrupt and destructive, it would be comedic in its Beavis-and-Butthead juvenility. The strategy ought to be obvious: Since a philosophically-sound argument in support of statist collectivism is impossible to construct, you attempt to intimidate opponents of statist collectivism with a blanket, ad hominem smear.

Racism, by definition, is a variant of collectivism: the belief that the individual (if acknowledged at all) is of no significance and subordinate to the group as a matter of course. It's blatantly circular of course, an instance of the Stolen Concept fallacy (i.e., a "group" is only a concept denoting a set of two or more...individuals,) but little facts like that have never bothered doctrinaire collectivists. Facts get in the way of The Agenda, doncha know.

The phrase "race is no more important than shoe size" is not just figuratively but literally true. One's race, in real terms, is nothing more than a collection of measurements: the wavelengths of light reflected or absorbed by one's pigmentation; an aggregate of facial/physical dimensions that correspond generally with the dimensions of others, etc. So yeah, race and shoe size, peas in a pod. In that context, contemplate the lunacy of linking one's very identity to racial "membership" (as distinct from one's culture, which unlike race is open to choice,) then attaching significance, even pride to it.

As a species of political collectivism, the Democrat-Socialist Party's ideology is direct kin to racism, so it's a little rich to hear Demo-Socs accusing their opposition - who're generally individualists - as racists. Ah, gimme an analogy here...the intellectual equivalent of a John Cleese Silly Walk?


You can't make this kind of stuff up, folks. It's at times like this you have to just follow the maxim of "never get in the way of an opponent who is self-destructing," kick back and enjoy the fun - and mourn the exile of Reason from American discourse.

:cool:

Heckler
17-09-09, 03:43
This is the stuff of high comedy - Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite extraordinaire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html) and the exact same Jimmy Carter who last year referred to Obama as a "black boy," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69GSIjUZ3RM).......

:cool:

:vlol:

Why are political fanatics such hipocrits in America?....too much TV perhaps?

Punaxe
17-09-09, 11:10
(...) If I understand that correctly, it sounds like your system actually has a lot less government involvement than ours in the US. Here the insurance companies are so strictly regulated by the government that they cannot operate freely according to what makes the most sense and what people want. That's one of the main reasons why our healthcare system has these problems. I think another is the abuse of the ability to sue because so many hospitals and doctors get sued for ridiculously huge amounts of money for something that wasn't really their fault. Does your country allow lawsuits like this? Or are there any kind of restrictions on lawsuits? (For example, only being able to sue for actual damages, not for a huge punitive sum).

In any case, I definitely think that what you described is much better than Obama's proposed plan, and it might be better than what we've got now too.

Hmm, I don't know about the lawsuits... But I do know we're not much of a sueing population. :p I don't know if there are limitations, but the only cases that I hear of where medical staff is being sued is when something really went wrong: preventable deaths, severe injuries or severe psychological damage or so. I think, if the claims are honoured, the hospital pays for it, and the doctor is reprimanded accordingly by the medical council (revoking license for example) or even by the attorney general in severe cases. If it wasn't their fault or if they were at least doing their job as good as they could, the claim will simply be rejected.

Mona Sax
17-09-09, 11:14
As a species of political collectivism, the Democrat-Socialist Party's ideology is direct kin to racism, so it's a little rich to hear Demo-Socs accusing their opposition - who're generally individualists - as racists. Ah, gimme an analogy here...the intellectual equivalent of a John Cleese Silly Walk?
Hold on a moment here. 'Democrat-Socialists'? If a 'socialist' party can win an presidential race in one of the most conservative countries, I guess that means we should start painting world maps in deep red. It's also funny how you link an ideology which wants to unite workers worldwide to racism. Socialists are collectivists, but kin to racists? Look at the other end of the political spectrum for those.

Believe me, socialism is dead. It doesn't work in real life, it never worked and it will never work, least of all in the cutthroat political climate of a city like Washington D.C. Racism has nothing to do with whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

You're doing exactly what you accuse your political opponents of doing - apply labels you know exactly are wrong often enough and hope they'll stick. I know it's the way politics work in the US, but I'm sick and tired of it. McCarthy is gone, so are Marx and Hitler. Don't try and raise the dead.

interstellardave
17-09-09, 11:27
Racism has nothing to do with whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

Thanks for saying this. There are racists across all socio-economic groups, all races, and all political persuasions. I should think we've all noticed that by now!

Bowie
17-09-09, 11:28
There are more than two parties, it's just the only two parties that have any kind of significant popularity are the Democrats and the Republicans. If people wanted a third party they'd vote them into office.
This is bull****.

People are routinely mocked for "throwing away your vote" if you vote for a third party. The media and the pollsters control this two-party system. If the media gave equal airtime to other parties, people would feel more comfortable about voting them into power.

Unfortunately at the moment you're viewed as a conspiracy theorist for wanting to deny these two current ****ing lame ass parties the power they so willingly squander.

stereopathic
17-09-09, 13:44
...Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite extraordinaire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html) and the exact same Jimmy Carter who last year referred to Obama as a "black boy," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69GSIjUZ3RM)...

well, looked over both those links. the first is an opinion piece on carter's book, in which he says he that he tries to inform americans of the palestinian view of the conflict. i'm not saying it's a great book, or even factually correct, but it's not anti-semetic. i can understand why many jews were offended by his sympathy for palestine and critism of israel, but it wasn't anti-jew.

and the second link is a youtube vid of carter referring to obama as a black boy who grew up to be president in spite of having little but a loving family. well, that's not racist at all.

and then video ends with juxtaposed images of hitler, stalin and obama. nice. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure I've heard Carter say some racist things in the past...

are these statements above the same racist comments you're referring to, Ward?

Mad Tony
17-09-09, 16:09
Hold on a moment here. 'Democrat-Socialists'? If a 'socialist' party can win an presidential race in one of the most conservative countriesAmerica one of the most conservative countries in the world? I don't think so. :confused: The only place in the world America could be viewed as conservative in comparison is Europe, but that's only because a lot of western European countries are ultra-leftist.

This is bull****.

People are routinely mocked for "throwing away your vote" if you vote for a third party. The media and the pollsters control this two-party system. If the media gave equal airtime to other parties, people would feel more comfortable about voting them into power.

Unfortunately at the moment you're viewed as a conspiracy theorist for wanting to deny these two current ****ing lame ass parties the power they so willingly squander.If people wanted to vote another party they would. Just because most people either vote Republican or Democrat doesn't mean there's some sort of massive conspiracy keeping the other parties down. :rolleyes: Some people need to understand that reason the Libertarian party only got 500,000 votes or so is because they're way too extreme.

I don't think people who want to deny the two main parties power are conspiracy theorists. I do however think they're undemocratic.

interstellardave
17-09-09, 17:04
The two existing parties do wield their power in various ways to make it very hard for independant candidates to compete, Mad Tony. They don't exactly want outside competition... that's why you never see any true grass-roots political movements in the U.S. because all their resources have to go towards just getting on the ballot in the first place! And they have to face intense ridicule from the two-party-centric media outlets, which doesn't help. Ross Perot had personal wealth to draw on... which is why he was the notable exception.

Mad Tony
17-09-09, 18:04
But the fact still remains that if people wanted a party other than the Democrats and the Republicans in power they'd vote them in.

interstellardave
17-09-09, 18:10
But the fact still remains that if people wanted a party other than the Democrats and the Republicans in power they'd vote them in.

Most parties or independants can't get on the ballots in order for people to vote for them. It's a lot of red tape, a lot of money required, and a lot of effort needed to even be recognized by the media... believe me, if the media ignores you, you may as well give up. You could be the best candidate the world has ever seen but if you're buried by red tape and media bias it won't matter.

Mad Tony
17-09-09, 18:19
But take the Libertarian party presidential candidate Bob Barr. He achieved ballot access to 45 of the 50 states. Obviously people would've seen his name on the ballot along with his party. If people had really wanted to they would've voted for him (or any other candidate for that matter). I get what you're saying but no party is being physically prevented from obtaining power. If anyone is to blame it's the voters, although I don't think they should be blamed for voting for who they want to vote for.

Super Badnik
17-09-09, 18:22
The whole race thing gets real stupid with Obama. Anyone who didn't vote for him was a "racist", it's about time they stopped playing the race card and defended their and Obama's decisions with valid arguements.

stereopathic
17-09-09, 18:31
But take the Libertarian party presidential candidate Bob Barr. He achieved ballot access to 45 of the 50 states. Obviously people would've seen his name on the ballot along with his party. If people had really wanted to they would've voted for him (or any other candidate for that matter). I get what you're saying but no party is being physically prevented from obtaining power. If anyone is to blame it's the voters, although I don't think they should be blamed for voting for who they want to vote for.

unfortunately most americans don't dig to find the best candidates. if they don't vote on a strict party line, they normally just choose between the candidates the media presents to them. third party candidates, including bob barr, are often banned from participating in televised debates. same for ralph nader in the 2000 election.

in fact, it doesn't just stop at third parties. fox news wouldn't let ron paul into the republican debate just prior to the new hampshire primaries, effectively ending his run at the office.

Uzi master
17-09-09, 23:17
well Mad Tony you don't live in the U.S. so you wouldn't know about there politics, things are different everywere, I don't go around insulting the queen of england. (though if I did I would get in trouble being in British Columbia and all.

Ward Dragon
17-09-09, 23:42
are these statements above the same racist comments you're referring to, Ward?

I haven't really looked at those links so I don't know. I've heard him say some pretty extreme things against Israel in the past which sounded antisemitic to me, but I don't have any links handy. I'm not really trying to argue the point because I don't care that much. It was just my first reaction, hearing Carter call somebody racist for comments that clearly had nothing to do with race.

But take the Libertarian party presidential candidate Bob Barr. He achieved ballot access to 45 of the 50 states. Obviously people would've seen his name on the ballot along with his party. If people had really wanted to they would've voted for him (or any other candidate for that matter). I get what you're saying but no party is being physically prevented from obtaining power. If anyone is to blame it's the voters, although I don't think they should be blamed for voting for who they want to vote for.

I never even heard of Bob Barr. If he was on the ballot, I didn't notice him. The American system is weighted so heavily in favor of Democrats and Republicans that there may as well only be two parties right now. Personally I'd like to see the Republican party get dissolved and replaced by the Libertarians, but unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon. Since the Libertarians have no chance of winning, I mostly pay attention to the two main candidates. I prefer the Libertarian ideals over both main parties, though.

Kittypower
17-09-09, 23:44
well Mad Tony you don't live in the U.S. so you wouldn't know about there politics, things are different everywere, I don't go around insulting the queen of england. (though if I did I would get in trouble being in British Columbia and all.

you dont have to be in the united states to be interested(and form some kind of opinion) of its politics.

Uzi master
17-09-09, 23:57
yes but he still wouldn't know unless he was actually there.

SpaceChild
18-09-09, 03:23
Hold on a moment here. 'Democrat-Socialists'? If a 'socialist' party can win an presidential race in one of the most conservative countries, I guess that means we should start painting world maps in deep red. It's also funny how you link an ideology which wants to unite workers worldwide to racism. Socialists are collectivists, but kin to racists? Look at the other end of the political spectrum for those.

Mona, my point in changing "Democrat" to "Democrat-Socialist" is to "out" the people who are presently calling themselves by the former even though their ideology is to the whiplash-left of classic, mainstream Democrats like JFK and MLK (who're presumably doing something like 6,000 RPM just now.) I think it demonstrable that they only succeed electorally to the extent to which they conceal their true aims from their supporters, behind the smarmy altruism of "helping the little guy." When people discover that behind those platitudes lies de facto slavery, the people rebel. Which is precisely what we're seeing with the "tea party" phenomenon, of which I'm proud to be a part and which has cut across all party lines and social strata, vile ad hominem slurs notwithstanding. My goal is to encourage classic, rational Democrats to reject the frothing types who've usurped their Party and pull that Party back into the mainstream, or at least into the realm of sanity.

Secondly, you're drawing an invalid syllogism from my point, and perhaps that's my fault for not being clear enough, though I thought I had. When I say that racism is kin to socialism, I mean that both racism and socialism are rooted in the collectivist worldview, inextricably. That part I did make clear: They are both evil (not just "impractical") beliefs because at root they reject the primacy of the individual in favor of some group. In the case of racists, the group-think is ethnicity; in the case of socialists, the group-think is income stratum. The two are referents of the same ideological genus.

And "Look at the other end of the political spectrum for those"? That other end is the polar opposite of racism: individualism and its politicoeconomic corollary, capitalism. Both are antithetical to racism - individualism by metaphysical fact, capitalism by its very nature and function (it rejects nonessential, physical attributes in favor of just one: how well you think and produce.)

But don't assume the invalid syllogism of "all racists are collectivists, therefore all collectivists are racists." That's flatly illogical and...not what I said. My point was simply that it is ironic and not a little hypocritical for collectivists to be calling individualists racist, when racism does indeed reside at the collectivist, not individualist, end of the ideological spectrum. It's not a crucial point, but important to consider.

It is my belief that the reason so little headway has been made in refuting racism persuasively is because racism is rarely identified for what it is: a variant of collectivism.

That identification must be made before racism's sole antidote - individualism - can be applied to any appreciable extent on a societal level.

So I'm not saying Demo-Socialists are concealing racism's identity because they themselves are necessarily racist (excepting the likes of Carter.) It works from the opposite direction: they're concealing racism's identity because it's incredibly bad PR for one's political ideology to be shown as a separate branch of the same rotten tree.

_____________________

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual." - Rand
_____________________

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 10:53
well Mad Tony you don't live in the U.S. so you wouldn't know about there politics, things are different everywere, I don't go around insulting the queen of england. (though if I did I would get in trouble being in British Columbia and all.I don't really know what insulting the queen has to do with it (I couldn't care less if you did anyway), unless you're saying that because I'm not American I shouldn't be allowed criticize Obama?

Oh, and she's the queen of the United Kingdom, not England. :)

you dont have to be in the united states to be interested(and form some kind of opinion) of its politics.This! :tmb:

yes but he still wouldn't know unless he was actually there.Why not? I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of American politics but I still take an interest into it. I don't have to live in America to know that the Libertarian candidate for president only got 500,000 votes, for example. Remember, the 2008 election received quite a lot of coverage world-wide. With things like the internet and the media you don't necessarily have to live in a country to know about its politics.

Mona Sax
18-09-09, 11:32
Mona, my point in changing "Democrat" to "Democrat-Socialist" is to "out" the people who are presently calling themselves by the former even though their ideology is to the whiplash-left of classic, mainstream Democrats like JFK and MLK (who're presumably doing something like 6,000 RPM just now.) I think it demonstrable that they only succeed electorally to the extent to which they conceal their true aims from their supporters, behind the smarmy altruism of "helping the little guy."
That's a gross exaggeration. I'm probably far left of 95% of Democrats, and I have a hard time finding anything 'socialist' about their agenda. I see nothing that indicates any hidden aims, either, other than the personal power plays typical of the average politician. Reminds me of classic conspiracy theories, really, and it doesn't make any more sense than 9/11, the 1969 moon landing or McCarthyism.

By the way, 'helping the little guy' should be such a basic no-brainer that if they won the election based on that, it means their opponents screwed up big time.
Secondly, you're drawing an invalid syllogism from my point, and perhaps that's my fault for not being clear enough, though I thought I had. When I say that racism is kin to socialism, I mean that both racism and socialism are rooted in the collectivist worldview, inextricably. That part I did make clear: They are both evil (not just "impractical") beliefs because at root they reject the primacy of the individual in favor of some group. In the case of racists, the group-think is ethnicity; in the case of socialists, the group-think is income stratum. The two are referents of the same ideological genus.

[...]My point was simply that it is ironic and not a little hypocritical for collectivists to be calling individualists racist, when racism does indeed reside at the collectivist, not individualist, end of the ideological spectrum. It's not a crucial point, but important to consider.
That's only partly correct, as collectivist and individualist tendencies appear in all political variations. For example, communism aims to unite one social group against another (collectivism) - but demands that everyone can work according to their abilities and preferences (individualism). Social liberals usually promote solidarity (collectivism) - and defend your right to do as you please within the limits of other people's same right (individualism). Conservatives, libertarians and religious fundamentalists often show collectivist treats, as an 'us vs them' mentality is often prevalent in their worldviews. You're a collectivist in some aspects as much as I am, otherwise you'd reside in the woods and certainly wouldn't frequent an internet forum.

And - 'evil'? There's no denying that collectivism in all its shades often isn't without flaws, but then again, is individualism? The primacy of the individual isn't always a good thing. Think of a thief, a drug baron, an overly greedy CEO (all the same, IMO). All hardcore individualists, right? 'Good' and 'evil' are terms I would expect Bush, the Pope or the Taliban (again the same, IMO ;)) to use, but not an educated person.

Azerutan
18-09-09, 13:13
yes but he still wouldn't know unless he was actually there.
That is simply ridiculous. I have master degree in politics and I can't argue about American politics because I don't live there? LOL There are people out there who probably know much more about the issue than you and they also don't live there buddy...

SpaceChild
18-09-09, 14:09
That's a gross exaggeration. I'm probably far left of 95% of Democrats, and I have a hard time finding anything 'socialist' about their agenda. I see nothing that indicates any hidden aims, either, other than the personal power plays typical of the average politician. Reminds me of classic conspiracy theories, really, and it doesn't make any more sense than 9/11, the 1969 moon landing or McCarthyism.

I will concede that the present-day lurch of the Democrat Party in America is more fascist than socialist. Socialism by definition is the confiscation of the material means of production by the government; fascism by definition is the nominal retention of the means of production in private hands - allowed so as to maintain carefully the illusion of liberty - while full control of all aspects of production are dictated by government from behind the scenes, coupled with the dictation of every aspect of personal activity under force of binding law. If you're not aware of the latter character of virtually every edict to have come down from Obama/Pelosi/Reid over the last eight months, it's due to self-imposed blinders, not the ad hom of "conspiracy theorism" applied to me. And true, the agenda is no longer hidden - which is why rank-and-file Americans are rebelling spontaneously nationwide - but it had been carefully concealed behind a dolled-up facade of smarmy generalities throughout the last three years' (endless) Presidential campaign. That's a simple matter of historic record.

By the way, 'helping the little guy' should be such a basic no-brainer that if they won the election based on that, it means their opponents screwed up big time.

I'm not certain what you mean by "no-brainer" here, but "helping the little guy" is the consistent refrain we've heard from the Democrat Party for literally decades. It may be fine in the sphere of personal choice on direct, one-to-one charity, but "helping the little guy" elevated to the level of public policy inescapably means slavery for everyone in general. To paraphrase a great philosopher, the man who works while someone else confiscates the product of his effort by force, is a slave. Theft is theft, regardless of whether the thief plans to "redistribute" the loot to his own pockets or to those of "the little guy."

collectivist and individualist tendencies appear in all political variations. For example, communism aims to unite one social group against another (collectivism) - but demands that everyone can work according to their abilities and preferences (individualism). Social liberals usually promote solidarity (collectivism) - and defend your right to do as you please within the limits of other people's same right (individualism). Conservatives, libertarians and religious fundamentalists often show collectivist treats, as an 'us vs them' mentality is often prevalent in their worldviews. You're a collectivist in some aspects as much as I am, otherwise you'd reside in the woods and certainly wouldn't frequent an internet forum.

Here you're equivocating on context, big time. If you define any social activity beyond Tom Hanks staring out at the ocean from that island as "collectivism," well yeah, by that yardstick we're all goose-stepping collectivists. But the terms "collectivism" and "individualism" in the proper context refer strictly to political ideologies, and attempts to blur the distinction between the two by casual context-dropping doesn't alter the fact. They remain the two fundamentally-distinct, polar opposites in ideology. Mr. Peart's line is directly relevant here ("There is a Rush lyric for every situation in life..."): "You can twist perceptions / Reality won't budge."

Indeed.

And - 'evil'? There's no denying that collectivism in all its shades often isn't without flaws, but then again, is individualism?

Evil does not consist of minor "flaws" any more than good consists of some godly standard of "flawlessness." Collectivism the ideology is evil because it cannot be implemented without violating the rights of individuals by brute force. That's not to say that its adherents are necessarily evil for believing in it and promoting it. (There is a vital difference between errors of judgment and breaches of morality.)

The primacy of the individual isn't always a good thing. Think of a thief, a drug baron, an overly greedy CEO (all the same, IMO). All hardcore individualists, right?

Huh? How so? A thief or drug baron (by which I assume you mean some ruthless mafioso, not Dave the local pot dealer) can't be automatically assumed to be individualist any more than he can be assumed a collectivist. It's a non-sequitur. And "overly greedy CEO" is a caricature that begs definition. CEOs are compensated by the boards of directors and stockholders of the corporations for which they work, by free, voluntary, contractual agreement. Generally speaking, they earn every penny of that compensation. (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4555) In a free (or even semi-free) market, the only motive for despising someone with a higher salary than one's own is gutter envy.

'Good' and 'evil' are terms I would expect Bush, the Pope or the Taliban (again the same, IMO ;)) to use, but not an educated person.

Wow. So you're saying that being "educated" means...denying the existence of good and evil?

Wow.

Mona Sax
18-09-09, 16:37
In that case... 'pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name'. If you think an average socialist is evil, I'm Satan incarnate. ;) Individual rights are undeniably very important (that's the quintessence of liberalism...), but they do have limits - the freedom and safety of another being, most importantly. I also think every society has the moral obligation to look out for its weaker links. The economy will hardly ever accept that responsibility, so the state has to intervene. Laissez-faire regimens don't work (I'm sure you'll accept that the average English citizen is much better off than he was some 120 years ago, and not only due to technological progress).

By the way, I earn a decent salary. I'm not interested in status symbols like jewelry, fashion labels or fast cars. Envy? I don't think so. It just ****es me off when people think one person is worth as much as hundreds of ordinary workers. Boards of directors, stockholders? You know as well as I do that there's nothing democratic about big corporations' compensation systems. It's one big circle... or spiral, more accurately. Those salaries don't reflect any economic value, they reflect a certain group's wish to be able to outspend their peers.

I think that an educated person would be able to see the world not only in black and white. Good and evil are religiously charged terms, they don't belong in a world as politically complex as ours. I count your 'spontaneous' rank-and-file Americans in that category, too. How many of the protesters have in-depth knowledge of political systems - or of health care? Death panels? Seriously?

Uzi master
18-09-09, 23:03
I don't really know what insulting the queen has to do with it (I couldn't care less if you did anyway), unless you're saying that because I'm not American I shouldn't be allowed criticize Obama?

Oh, and she's the queen of the United Kingdom, not England. :)

This! :tmb:

Why not? I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of American politics but I still take an interest into it. I don't have to live in America to know that the Libertarian candidate for president only got 500,000 votes, for example. Remember, the 2008 election received quite a lot of coverage world-wide. With things like the internet and the media you don't necessarily have to live in a country to know about its politics.

ok you won't know everthing about the United states, you wouldn't know what its really like unless you lived there and actually participated. so people may wan't a certain party but that doesn't mean therye all going to vote for them, I don't know everything but my point on it was that polotics are going to be different in the U.S. because its not your o my country.

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 23:42
ok you won't know everthing about the United states, you wouldn't know what its really like unless you lived there and actually participated. so people may wan't a certain party but that doesn't mean therye all going to vote for them, I don't know everything but my point on it was that polotics are going to be different in the U.S. because its not your o my country.I don't really see your point. I don't have to live in the US to know how many people voted and for what party.

Uzi master
18-09-09, 23:44
thats not what I'm saying! people won' vote for the other parties for theyre own reasons, pressure being un-informed ect. as someone said before one person couldn't continuie to run because the media wouldnt let them debate.

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 23:49
thats not what I'm saying! people won' vote for the other parties for theyre own reasons, pressure being un-informed ect. as someone said before one person couldn't continuie to run because the media wouldnt let them debate.So because I don't live in the US I'm not able to ask people via the internet why they didn't vote for a certain party?

You seem to think that because I don't live there I have no way of finding out people's personal reasons for not voting for a certain party, even though you can find out these reasons at places like this.

Ward Dragon
18-09-09, 23:57
So because I don't live in the US I'm not able to ask people via the internet why they didn't vote for a certain party?

I'm not trying to continue the argument here. From what I've seen here in the US, most people only vote for the two main parties because they are widely known and get a lot of media coverage. Most people don't know who the third party candidates are and don't really care because they have no chance of winning. People are afraid of "throwing away their vote" on a candidate who cannot win due to lack of recognition and lack of campaign funds compared to the main Democratic and Republican candidates.

Uzi master
18-09-09, 23:58
thank you!:hug: I doubt most people in the U.S. would try to get as informed as some people on the forum.

Mad Tony
18-09-09, 23:58
I'm not trying to continue the argument here. From what I've seen here in the US, most people only vote for the two main parties because they are widely known and get a lot of media coverage. Most people don't know who the third party candidates are and don't really care because they have no chance of winning. People are afraid of "throwing away their vote" on a candidate who cannot win due to lack of recognition and lack of campaign funds compared to the main Democratic and Republican candidates.There is in fact a similar situation here with parties other than the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives. My answer to that though is not that the main parties should be forcibly removed from office but that people should just carry on voting for whoever they want.

@Uzi Master: You still haven't explained your point. I don't agree with certain things that have been said in this discussion but that doesn't mean I don't not understand anything. :confused:

Uzi master
19-09-09, 00:05
you stated whatn its supposed to be not what it truley is, and some people do vote for who they want but, just read warddragons post again.

Ward Dragon
19-09-09, 00:08
There is in fact a similar situation here with parties other than the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives. My answer to that though is not that the main parties should be forcibly removed from office but that people should just carry on voting for whoever they want.

I don't think the government can or should eliminate a political party. The Republicans are self-destructing though. If they don't reform themselves and clarify what they stand for, they won't last much longer. The Republicans seem about ready to lay down and die (with a few exceptions). Right now it's the Democrats who are opposing Obama and preventing him from getting all of his legislation passed.

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 00:12
you stated whatn its supposed to be not what it truley is, and some people do vote for who they want but, just read warddragons post again.I understand what the situation is. I've already said this. I hold the opinion that the citizens of a nation (not just the US, but any democracy) ultimately decide who they want leading them. Just because there are two, or three main parties doesn't necessarily mean the other parties are deliberately being put down. Perhaps the reason why there are only two or three main parties in any given country is because they are the parties which fall in line with the majority of the population's political views?

20s and 30s Germany showed us that any political party can grow over a short period time and take control of the government. Yes, I know it's a Nazi comparison but it's relevant.

All it is is a difference in opinion, so stop with all this "you don't live there therefore you don't understand". All I'm saying is that if the majority of the American people had wanted say, the Greens in office then they could've voted for them. There was absolutely nothing stopping them.

@Ward Dragon: I know you don't but some do hold that view. I have no idea why though. They complain about the smaller parties not getting a say and then advocate silencing the major ones.

Tyrannosaurus
19-09-09, 03:34
To have a truly racially undivided America, there needs to be a non-human president in charge. Either a dinosaur or a computer.

Kittypower
19-09-09, 03:47
To have a truly racially undivided America, there needs to be a non-human president in charge. Either a dinosaur or a computer.

We tried that in the 60s and look how that turned out, we invaded Vietnam.

Ward Dragon
19-09-09, 03:52
To have a truly racially undivided America, there needs to be a non-human president in charge. Either a dinosaur or a computer.

I vote for a computer because it won't eat me.

We tried that in the 60s and look how that turned out, we invaded Vietnam.

So was JFK a dinosaur or a robot? :confused:

Lemmie
19-09-09, 04:57
I vote for a computer because it won't eat me.


You never know. Printers can be dangerous things.

SpaceChild
19-09-09, 05:02
T-Rex: LOL! :jmp:

In that case... 'pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name'. If you think an average socialist is evil, I'm Satan incarnate. ;)

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Socialism is unquestionably evil; a given adherent of it may or may not be. Once again, with feeling: There is a difference between errors of knowledge (common) and breaches of morality (thankfully far less common.) As to a belief in a supernatural dimension, I'll leave that to you...

Individual rights are undeniably very important (that's the quintessence of liberalism...), but they do have limits - the freedom and safety of another being, most importantly.

No conflict there. But that is the limit. The reason for which governments are instituted at all (see the Declaration of INdependence,) is strictly delimited to: the defense of the rights of the individual. The operative principle is a recognition that governments - of any place or time - are potentially orders of magnitude more dangerous to the lives of the people than the worst serial murderer.

In the wake of the worldwide collapse of socialism ca. 1989, a group of unusually-honest European leftists set out to write a book about the achievements of the Soviet bloc that may not have made it to the world media, using newly-opened archives of the former Soviet Union. What they found instead of the expected industrial and social wonders was a vast international butcher shop, with a 20th-century body count they estimated to be well in excess of 100,000,000 - that's one hundred million corpses. Fortunately for the rest of us, they had the integrity to publish it anyway. It's called "The Black Book of Communism (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/)" by Courtois, Werth, Panne, et al., and I recommend you get one and read it.

I also think every society has the moral obligation to look out for its weaker links.

Based on what, religious charity? We have a wall of separation of church and state, thanks, and it's an innovation that was desperately needed after millennia of bloody theocracies. Don't let's revert back to that crap. In any case, religious morality by definition pertains to personal, individual conduct, not political edicts - except in theocracies, of course.

Laissez-faire regimens don't work (I'm sure you'll accept that the average English citizen is much better off than he was some 120 years ago, and not only due to technological progress).

Sidestepping the core fact that the primary issue is ethics, not pragmatism, and that capitalism is the only ethical system ever devised, and ignoring for the moment the fact that laissez faire has only ever been approximated with attendant controls even in the freest of economies, in simple point of fact it does "work." We are way, way off topic in debating the efficacy of capitalism vs. collectivism, but in every single instance you can point to:

-Capitalism, to the degree to which it is allowed to function free of the depredations of government force, vastly enriches the human condition for all living within its sphere, on all income strata.
-Collectivism, to the degree to which it is imposed, impoverishes, brutalizes and ultimately destroys any trapped within it.

Take a world globe, spin it, close your eyes, drop a finger on it, and examine the history of whatever country you land on. Facts do not lie. See again the Peart quote, above.

Envy? I don't think so. It just ****es me off when people think one person is worth as much as hundreds of ordinary workers.

But...why, outside of envy, is this objectionable? In a free - or even semi-free - society, every person is free to rise as high economically as he or she can, based on talent, ambition, motivation, and yes, luck (i.e., chance.) Whether someone else makes more than you is irrelevant to your situation. Every person is free to ditch, boycott and refuse to work for a company one deems objectionable in any way. As for your statement "Those salaries don't reflect any economic value," you clearly didn't bother to read Journo's article (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4555). This post is long enough - shouldn't have to re-create his points here. Do some clicking and self-challenging, please.

I think that an educated person would be able to see the world not only in black and white. Good and evil are religiously charged terms, they don't belong in a world as politically complex as ours.

I think that the vestigial, doctrinaire collectivist at some point must attempt to fudge the distinction between good and evil, precisely because collectivism as a political ideology is so demonstrably evil in both theory and in historic practice. One can only wonder at the motives for choosing to attempt waging war against metaphysical and ethical reality rather than the more rational course of...questioning one's worship of a philosophy that is rotten to the core.

But "political complexity" is an utter irrelevancy here. Good and evil - i.e., Ethics - are inescapable to life qua human being. If you are arguing for...anything, really, you are accepting the premise that life is the ultimate value for a living human being. (IOW, the converse would be accepting death as one's standard of value, in which case arguing for anything, especially for "what is a proper politico-economic system," would be pointless in context of that standard, and suicide would be one's only logical course.)

In short, good and evil are the backbone of human survival itself. Every small kid learns that lesson (which some some clearly forget later,) that some things are good (i.e., they are values for the furtherance of one's life, like food and sleep,) and some things are bad (i.e., they are disvalues to be avoided, like putting a finger on a hot stove or kicking a hornet's nest.) As we grow and our conceptual development becomes more complex and abstract, we gain the ability to identify far more indirect values and disvalues. But if you are a living being, blowing off the issue of morality is not an option. Not if you plan on surviving.

I agree fully with Rand's point here: moral "greyness" is cultish (http://freedomkeys.com/ar-moralgrayness.htm), and is the precursor, invariably, to evil, not good. If we are, as Nietsche put it, "beyond good and evil," then there is no basis for saying that an Auschwitz is any worse than a shopping mall, that freedom is better than dictatorship, that life is any better than death. It's "anything goes," essentially. What that has always translated to, historically, is: mountains of human corpses.

I count your 'spontaneous' rank-and-file Americans in that category, too. How many of the protesters have in-depth knowledge of political systems - or of health care? Death panels? Seriously?

I have to thank you for posting this statement, because it's an excellent illustration of the stunning condescension endemic to today's Left.

No, we plebes out here cannot possibly hope to understand any of this political...thingy, and it is only for an enlightened elite, exclusively privy to a special, revealed wisdom, to dictate to us?

Uhh, yuh.

:whi:
______________

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy — nor a social convention — nor a dispensable, subjective luxury.... Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival — not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life." - Rand

Mona Sax
19-09-09, 11:44
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Socialism is unquestionably evil; a given adherent of it may or may not be.
We have to agree to disagree here.
No conflict there. But that is the limit. The reason for which governments are instituted at all (see the Declaration of INdependence,) is strictly delimited to: the defense of the rights of the individual. The operative principle is a recognition that governments - of any place or time - are potentially orders of magnitude more dangerous to the lives of the people than the worst serial murderer.
Agreed - point is, I consider the right to live a decent life, even if don't have the means or abilities to guarantee it for myself, an individual right, too. I do not consider the power to take advantage of others a right.
In the wake of the worldwide collapse of socialism ca. 1989, a group of unusually-honest European leftists set out to write a book about the achievements of the Soviet bloc that may not have made it to the world media, using newly-opened archives of the former Soviet Union. What they found instead of the expected industrial and social wonders was a vast international butcher shop, with a 20th-century body count they estimated to be well in excess of 100,000,000 - that's one hundred million corpses. Fortunately for the rest of us, they had the integrity to publish it anyway. It's called "The Black Book of Communism (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/)" by Courtois, Werth, Panne, et al., and I recommend you get one and read it.
I'm far from defending the Soviet Union or any other tyrannical regime. I neither support Castro's Cuba nor China, should you mention those. Point is - all of those governments are dictatorial and/or oligarchical, thus incompatible with a extensively collectivist philosophy like communism or socialism (even the dictatorship of the proletariat, an interim step on the road to a stateless society, is a rule of the many, not of the few). Tyrants will always use ideologies (be it religions, capitalism, communism, atheism or whatnot) to unite, motivate or sedate their people. Both religions and communism are particularly suited for that aim because they promise people everything - tomorrow (religions being the most extreme example with their concept of an afterlife).

I'm a pacifist, and a democrat (notice the lowercase). Any questions?
Based on what, religious charity? We have a wall of separation of church and state, thanks, and it's an innovation that was desperately needed after millennia of bloody theocracies. Don't let's revert back to that crap. In any case, religious morality by definition pertains to personal, individual conduct, not political edicts - except in theocracies, of course.
No, I'm an atheist. I just believe that if you profit from society, as any company and any businessman does, you should contribute to it as much as you can. Everybody should feel the same burden. Of course if you're stronger, you're going to have to carry more. It's not only common decency, it's also a necessity to prevent society from falling apart. The more the gap in incomes is becoming wider, the more civil unrest you're going to feel. Whether it's envy or need isn't going to matter once the **** hits the fan. Remember that every empire, political or economic, has ended in chaos and violence so far.
Sidestepping the core fact that the primary issue is ethics, not pragmatism, and that capitalism is the only ethical system ever devised, and ignoring for the moment the fact that laissez faire has only ever been approximated with attendant controls even in the freest of economies, in simple point of fact it does "work." We are way, way off topic in debating the efficacy of capitalism vs. collectivism, but in every single instance you can point to:

-Capitalism, to the degree to which it is allowed to function free of the depredations of government force, vastly enriches the human condition for all living within its sphere, on all income strata.
-Collectivism, to the degree to which it is imposed, impoverishes, brutalizes and ultimately destroys any trapped within it.
Well, here's the freest of economies that's ever existed:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/Arbeiterkind.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/KindervorWohnung.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/child-poverty-002.jpg

Wonderful and enriching for everybody, isn't it? And no government in sight.
But...why, outside of envy, is this objectionable? In a free - or even semi-free - society, every person is free to rise as high economically as he or she can, based on talent, ambition, motivation, and yes, luck (i.e., chance.) Whether someone else makes more than you is irrelevant to your situation. Every person is free to ditch, boycott and refuse to work for a company one deems objectionable in any way. As for your statement "Those salaries don't reflect any economic value," you clearly didn't bother to read Journo's article (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4555). This post is long enough - shouldn't have to re-create his points here. Do some clicking and self-challenging, please.
I read it, and I don't agree with it. And tell the 9.5% currently unemployed in the U.S. to refuse a job... Social security unfortunately isn't really supported by conservatives, if I remember correctly.

Let's take me out of the equation. I already mentioned that I'm fine with my salary, and most of the things I could afford with a higher one, I wouldn't want anyway (well, maybe a round-the-world trip...). I simply think it's unethical to think you're worth more than somebody else and that taking more negatively affects social harmony. We all have 24 hours a day, and we're all limited by our physical and intellectual abilities. Same effort, same pay.
I think that the vestigial, doctrinaire collectivist at some point must attempt to fudge the distinction between good and evil, precisely because collectivism as a political ideology is so demonstrably evil in both theory and in historic practice. One can only wonder at the motives for choosing to attempt waging war against metaphysical and ethical reality rather than the more rational course of...questioning one's worship of a philosophy that is rotten to the core.
[...]I agree fully with Rand's point here: moral "greyness" is cultish (http://freedomkeys.com/ar-moralgrayness.htm), and is the precursor, invariably, to evil, not good. If we are, as Nietsche put it, "beyond good and evil," then there is no basis for saying that an Auschwitz is any worse than a shopping mall, that freedom is better than dictatorship, that life is any better than death. It's "anything goes," essentially. What that has always translated to, historically, is: mountains of human corpses.
I don't deny the existence of good and bad, I just refuse to use the religious term 'evil'. Good and bad exist in various shades, evil on the other hand, in its absoluteness, makes all fair and objective discourse impossible. It's a statement that, like all religious judgment, can neither be supported nor refuted and therefore has no place in a secular environment.

I'm neither a socialist nor a doctrinaire collectivist, by the way. Any ideology invariably uses physical, economic or political violence when met with dissent of any kind. I refuse violence, and I refuse the 'us vs them' point of view inherent to all ideologies.
I have to thank you for posting this statement, because it's an excellent illustration of the stunning condescension endemic to today's Left.

No, we plebes out here cannot possibly hope to understand any of this political...thingy, and it is only for an enlightened elite, exclusively privy to a special, revealed wisdom, to dictate to us?
I don't like elites, and I don't like dictators. I think people should educate themselves and try to learn as much as possible, something too many people don't. It's simply disheartening to see the following over and over again:

- Right-wing radio talk host:
'Obama is a socialist and wants to kill your grandma!'

- Spontaneous right-wing rank and file conservative (at town hall meeting):
'Obama is a socialist and wants to kill my grandma!'

It was the same with Bush, just to make myself clear.

I want you to understand that while I I couldn't disagree with your political, economical and ethical worldview more, I respect both you as a person and your opinion. I wish you'd do me the same favor. There's no need to accuse me of laziness or moral defects.

SpaceChild
19-09-09, 19:22
We are so far apart on so many things that we could do this for months - I say we do it over pitchers of beer and get duly pie-eyed.:cln:

Some basic points:

The concept of rights has been so distorted in recent decades that it's virtually lost its meaning. There is a core principle that is roundly ignored these days but, again, is inescapable: Aristotle's law of identity (which most of us laughed at in H.S. geometry class as a no-brainer,) says that A=A, a thing is what it is; it cannot simultaneously be itself and a negation of itself.

Applied to the concept of rights, there can be no "right to violate rights," but that's what people have morphed their conception of "rights" into, either knowingly or not.

Each of us has the right to our lives and to the basic, independent preconditions for remaining alive: liberty and the right to work to gain and keep duly-earned property (we are material beings, therefore we require material property to live, thrive and pursue happiness.) But the instant somebody asserts a "right" to anything that must be provided by someone else, then that "someone else's" rights must be negated for the satisfaction of your false "rights," and the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own internal contradiction.

You say you have a "right to live a decent life, even if don't have the means or abilities to guarantee it for myself," then in virtually the same breath follow with "I do not consider the power to take advantage of others a right."

Where, if you don't secure it for yourself, does your "right to a decent life" come from? As a famous literary character once put it, "the goods are not here." If you can't or won't provide your own wants yet demand that they be met, what happens to the rights - the valid rights - of those who are thereby compelled to provide them to you? And how is forcing others to give things to you not an instance of taking advantage of others?

In short, if you deprive other people of their rights for your benefit, you've wiped out the justification for your own. It's a flat self-contradiction.

That is the core ethical flaw in collectivism in its every variant: By definition, collectivism literally cannot be practiced without the systematic violation of individual rights. In short, collectivism requires the application of brute force upon some for the "benefit" of others, by its very nature. And attempting to posit collectivism as "a stateless society" that is somehow "beyond ideology" is an absurdity. Every worldview is "ideology" by definition, and collectivism in particular is the omnipotent state, again by definition. Pretending that collectivism is nicely separate and "pure" won't make it so.

On the other side of the equation, something you've been repeating is a common falsehood about a free market: A person who makes money in a free (or even semi-free) market does not "profit from society, as any company and any businessman does." That's a misconception based on a misunderstanding of economics, and it's seized upon and used as an excuse to impose statist collectivism by those who hate capitalism and freedom in general.

Wealth is not zero-sum, it's not a static quantity of cash that's just floating in the ionosphere, and when one person finds a way to grab a bunch of it everybody else gets less of that finite quantity. Wealth is constantly created, not "taken," and the origin of that creativity is: the human mind. And a wild disparity in incomes is a sign of an economy's health, not some retro-Marxian "proof of injustice." Should a teenager on a summer job make the same salary as the CEO of a company that earns billions for its stockholders? Should a college grad in an entry-level position make the same salary as someone who's worked in the same department for twenty years? A disparity of income is a reflection of the disparity of individual situations, of different levels of experience, of talent, of ambition, of innovation. Capitalism's inherently moral nature lies precisely in its matching of merit to income, and in preventing others from interfering in your right to pursue you individual dreams, be they elaborate or simple or anything between.

An attempt to impose "equality" of income by brute force is an attempt to force all people, at gunpoint, to be identical. Like "Metropolis"-identical. It's another attempt to wage war on reality. It is also monstrous at root.

But don't rich people "take" from society? Consider what Bill Gates did with what had been a dead idea about computers. Those who were around in the '60s, '70s and even '80s remember the subject of computers as being a kind of pointless mental knicknack, something that someone would eventually find some use for in the far future, but which for now was just a big gadget that only a few sciency geeks messed with.

He created a user-friendly interface (anti-MS partisan bickering aside) that paved the way for the later advent of the Internet and all of the vast benefit from which every one of us, directly or indirectly benefits today. Gates took nothing from anybody. He sought only his own goals - to bring an idea to reality and to make money at the same time. In so doing, he transformed and benefitted vastly the whole of human society for the 21st century, and did it as an unintended, secondary consequence. Think of the vast network of computer and internet-related businesses, jobs, fortunes and livelihoods that sprung up spontaneously as a result of his idea. A more vivid example of Smith's "invisible hand" is unimaginable.

Nothing was "taken" - on the contrary, a whole arse-load was given to the whole of humanity. As a reward, the collectivists in the Clinton "Justice" department launched an antitrust Witch Hunt against him. Swell.

The hoary old "child labor" smear is as fraudulent as substituting photographs for a cohesive argument so as to gain some kind of emotional traction.

Child labor did not begin with capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, it was ended by them. In agrarian-fuedal societies, every family member went to work as soon as they were physically able to lift a tool, just to avoid starvation. Child labor continued through the transitional phase from feudalism through industrial capitalism, until capitalism increased both productivity and prosperity for adults, thereby obviating the need to use every worker available. Take a look at economic history - capitalism is a history of ever-increasing productivity, of economies of scale, of ever-increasing free time for workers. Capitalism didn't impose child labor, it eliminated it. So much for that particular smear.

If you truly don't like dictators and don't like elites, then you'll learn about and fight for capitalism, 'cause under collectivism you'll get both in a very big, very oppressive way. Have a look at the last century.

And we're still way, way off topic. D'OH!

And I was going to try for "brief"... :vlol:

Mona Sax
19-09-09, 20:26
I'll try to keep it short. ;)

The end of child labor was enabled by technological progress - but is ultimately a result of social democracy (funnily enough, an offspring of socialism). Which entrepreneur would willingly pass on the cheapest workforce imagineable? Kids are short, too, which made them perfect for work in close environments. The former point is still prevalent as the most important argument to outsource work in a globalized world (again, often involving child labor - Nike, I'm looking at you). It's neither a smear nor a fraud - those pictures were taken before the days of Photoshop. It's a coincidence the first three pics I found were of children, by the way - the conditions of adult workers were just as horrible. Public outcry and political initiatives ended it, not economic ones. It took laws.

Wikipedia:
'Child labour had existed before the Industrial Revolution, but with the increase in population and education it became more visible. Many children were forced to work in relatively bad conditions for much lower pay than their elders.[42]

Reports were written detailing some of the abuses, particularly in the coal mines[43] and textile factories[44] and these helped to popularise the children's plight. The public outcry, especially among the upper and middle classes, helped stir change in the young workers' welfare.

Politicians and the government tried to limit child labour by law, but factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labour. In 1833 and 1844, the first general laws against child labour, the Factory Acts, were passed in England: Children younger than nine were not allowed to work, children were not permitted to work at night, and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours. Factory inspectors supervised the execution of the law. About ten years later, the employment of children and women in mining was forbidden. These laws decreased the number of child labourers; however, child labour remained in Europe up to the 20th century.'

The right to a decent life stems from the concept of society itself. The way I understand it, anyway. A CEO is worthless without ordinary workers, and they are unable to be successful on a large scale without proper management. If you get injured, I'll make sure you don't starve - but I count on your willingness to do the same for me. I don't consider that taking advantage of anybody. If it were, we'd all stop paying taxes and let all public infrastructure go to hell. Anarchy. Taking advantage of you would be taking more than I need or giving less than I could - in practice, it would probably mean putting a gun to your head.

So, companies and businessmen do profit from society. They profit from workers, they profit from roads, airports, the police. You profit from society every single day, it's totally unavoidable unless you live in the aforementioned woods (and don't try to call a hospital in case you get sick. You'll take care of yourself, remember?). Bill Gates had a great idea, but he wouldn't be able to buy a Sprite if not for the thousands of employees who do the actual work.

Yeah, I don't like dictators and elites, and for that exact same reason, I don't like laissez-faire capitalism. In capitalism, money is power, right? So, if according to almighty Wikipedia, 'In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth', you've got your elite right there.

As I mentioned, I don't worship any of the collectivist theories we're talking about. I'm a liberal democrat. While socialism and communism are certainly worth a thought, I'm convinced they're absolutely impracticable. Like democracy, I think capitalism is far from perfect, but the best solution available. It needs to be social, solidary and controlled, though. If you refuse to hand all political power to a select few, it would be nonsensical to give them all economic power. Lack of regulation is what caused the current crisis, so I think laissez-faire would be the worst possible way to go from here.

Johnnay
19-09-09, 20:51
^and child labour is still being done in this world:(

Kittypower
19-09-09, 21:46
I vote for a computer because it won't eat me.



So was JFK a dinosaur or a robot? :confused:

Robot, johnson was the dinosaur.

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 22:45
Bush Sr was the Reptilian! :vlol:

Uzi master
19-09-09, 22:50
Bush JR. was what then? the retard or the terrorist?:p

Mad Tony
19-09-09, 23:04
Bush JR. was what then? the retard or the terrorist?:pHe's a reptilian too. :tmb:

EmeraldFields
20-09-09, 00:41
*not just this post, but all of Mona's posts*

I agree with everything that you have said in this thread.

You're one of the best posters on this forum.:tmb:

Gladous
20-09-09, 02:05
Well, he did hire that one guy to tell everyone that it's the "white men's" fault that they are polluting the "black men's" environment. :rolleyes:

wantafanta
20-09-09, 02:25
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8258011.stm

Most Republicans have always disagreed with universal healthcare and high spending, why are they suddenly racist now just because there's an African American in office?

American politics would be much more interesting if there was debate instead of just Democrats branding people who oppose Obama as racists.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Jimmy Carter may be an idiot, but he also has degree in physics and commanded a nuclear submarine. He also won a Nobel prize.

Republicans against high spending???? You got to be kidding, brudda! Of course they talked tough on spending. They were out of power in the country for 50 years! Then when they took control of congress, they found out how tough it was to lead. They spent like drunken sailors. The nation debt was under $1 trillion when Carter left office. What did George Bush do with the Clinton surpluses? Spent it all. What was the debt when Bush left office. Look it up.

Now George Bush? Couldn't string 7 words together to make a complete sentence. Started a war for nothing. Got 5,000 good men and women killed. And you call Carter an idiot? Unbelieveable.

SamReeves
20-09-09, 05:13
Oh God, are you just a blockhead period? Forget what Ronald Reagan did after Carter left office and the mess he had to clean up? Hostages, inflation, a weak defense, trade imbalance, fuel crisis, and stalled space program come to mind for Carter's legacy.

Kittypower
20-09-09, 06:20
Oh God, are you just a blockhead period? Forget what Ronald Reagan did after Carter left office and the mess he had to clean up? Hostages, inflation, a weak defense, trade imbalance, fuel crisis, and stalled space program come to mind for Carter's legacy.

I have to agree. Except the blockhead part, Bush was worse(imo) than carter(if only because of his second term)

Mad Tony
20-09-09, 09:54
BWAHAHAHAHA! Jimmy Carter may be an idiot, but he also has degree in physics and commanded a nuclear submarine. He also won a Nobel prize.

Republicans against high spending???? You got to be kidding, brudda! Of course they talked tough on spending. They were out of power in the country for 50 years! Then when they took control of congress, they found out how tough it was to lead. They spent like drunken sailors. The nation debt was under $1 trillion when Carter left office. What did George Bush do with the Clinton surpluses? Spent it all. What was the debt when Bush left office. Look it up.

Now George Bush? Couldn't string 7 words together to make a complete sentence. Started a war for nothing. Got 5,000 good men and women killed. And you call Carter an idiot? Unbelieveable.I couldn't care less if Carter won a Nobel prize, still doesn't make him any less of an idiot and a fool.

Yeah, Republicans normally are against high spending. Bush faced a lot of criticism from members of his own party because of his spending, and quite rightly too. That's not to say that he just spent "Clinton's" (more like America's) surplus for no reason though.

Mona Sax
20-09-09, 11:34
I'd like to learn about those reasons one of these days.

EmeraldFields, thanks for the compliment. :hug:

Mad Tony
20-09-09, 11:47
I'd like to learn about those reasons one of these days.Well, for example, 9/11. That was a big event and probably one of the major causes Bush's budget deficit. The Department of Homeland Security was set up to help prevent further terrorist attacks and that obviously costs money.

I'm not saying I agree with Bush's spending but I find it funny when Democrats criticize Bush for his spending but ignore Obama's spending which is ten times higher than Bush's ever was. At this rate Obama will have spent more 1 year after coming into office than Bush did over his entire 8 years as president. So much for "change".

Mona Sax
20-09-09, 15:40
I don't think anybody's happy with high spending. The difference is that 9/11 by no means necessitated Bush's wars while the economic crisis is directly responsible for the huge worldwide losses. The only question is whether goverment intervention was the cheaper solution as opposed to letting various companies (in the banking and automobile sectors, most notably) crash.

Uzi master
20-09-09, 17:49
Well, for example, 9/11. That was a big event and probably one of the major causes Bush's budget deficit. The Department of Homeland Security was set up to help prevent further terrorist attacks and that obviously costs money.

I'm not saying I agree with Bush's spending but I find it funny when Democrats criticize Bush for his spending but ignore Obama's spending which is ten times higher than Bush's ever was. At this rate Obama will have spent more 1 year after coming into office than Bush did over his entire 8 years as president. So much for "change".

I belive you can only get voted in twice and each term is 2 years so he couldn't have spent for 8 years, your probably thinking of both of them:p

Ward Dragon
20-09-09, 18:18
I belive you can only get voted in twice and each term is 2 years so he couldn't have spent for 8 years, your probably thinking of both of them:p

A presidential term is 4 years. G. W. Bush served 2 terms and spent a total of 8 years in office.

House of Representatives has a term of 2 years. Senate has a term of 6 years, but the beginning of their terms are spaced out so that 1/3 of them are up for re-election every 2 years.

wantafanta
21-09-09, 02:33
Oh God, are you just a blockhead period? Forget what Ronald Reagan did after Carter left office and the mess he had to clean up? Hostages, inflation, a weak defense, trade imbalance, fuel crisis, and stalled space program come to mind for Carter's legacy.

Y'know what? I'd rather be a blockhead any day of the week than a Republican.
So you gonna blame Jimmy Carter because some religious fanatics in Iran took 50 US hostages? Then you gonna blame George Dubya because some religious fanatics flew a Jumbo Jet into the Pentagon? What would you have done to free the US hostages. This I gotta hear. Do you know that 15 US hostages were held in the middle east all through Reagan's 8 years?

I can name you 41 Reagan administration appointees who were indicted or went to prison. His own Secretary of Defense. His National Security Advisor. His own deputy Chief of Staff. His Secretary of Agriculture. His HEW secretary. His EPA chief. His CIA chief died before he could be indicted. Ever hear of the Savings and Loan scandal? It cost you half a trillion dollars. Know what Reagan said when he deregulated the S&Ls? "We're in the money now!" You wanna talk about messes!!!!! Every time your saber-rattling, McCarthyites take office, it ends up costing the US taxpayers trillions. You think George W. Bush didn't leave this country a train wreck? Another year of that clown - I'd move to Iraq. Your honor --- I rest my case.

Uzi master
21-09-09, 02:39
well thats just offensive!

Kittypower
21-09-09, 03:00
well thats just offensive!

im not seeing whats offensive about it.

Uzi master
21-09-09, 03:03
well maybe just rude

Tyrannosaurus
22-09-09, 05:36
We have to agree to disagree here.

Agreed - point is, I consider the right to live a decent life, even if don't have the means or abilities to guarantee it for myself, an individual right, too. I do not consider the power to take advantage of others a right. What do you consider to be a 'decent' life? I think people should have the freedom to find a decent life for themselves, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to it if they aren't willing to put any effort into obtaining one.

Everybody should feel the same burden. Of course if you're stronger, you're going to have to carry more. If you're carrying more, then you aren't sharing the same burden. Which is it?

I consider Emperor Tiberius to have been an evil man. Regardless, when some governors asked him to recommend an increase in the burden of provincial taxation, he replied with, "A good shepherd shears his flock; he does not flay them."

This assumes the shepherd is thinking past tonight's meal.

I read it, and I don't agree with it. And tell the 9.5% currently unemployed in the U.S. to refuse a job... Social security unfortunately isn't really supported by conservatives, if I remember correctly.
I know John Stossel and his crew actually went out and offered people jobs--people who paraded around with signs that read "will work for food." Very few showed up to take them up on that offer, and the few who did admitted they actually weren't looking for work at all. When asked why they couldn't apply to an entry-level position somewhere, many openly displayed a petulant unwillilngness to work. The povery industry (yes, this is an industry) keeps itself afloat by keeping people dependent on them. Local community efforts, churches, and private charities tend to know how to deal with poverty problems in their areas better than government programs.

I know that on average, the children of immigrants tend to be more financially successful than most Americans. And it's a pretty embarassing statistic that Haitian immirgrants are more successful on average than African Americans. For the first few years of living in America, they aren't even elligible for wellfare.

I don't deny the existence of good and bad, I just refuse to use the religious term 'evil'. Good and bad exist in various shades, evil on the other hand, in its absoluteness, makes all fair and objective discourse impossible. It's a statement that, like all religious judgment, can neither be supported nor refuted and therefore has no place in a secular environment. OK, this is what I really wanted to adress. Let me clear up one very important thing: Evil is not, cannot be, and never has been absolute. Evil, by definition, is a disease of good; it is a twisted, corrupted good. Therefore, evil must necessarily be inferior to good. The religions of Abraham are monotheistic, not duotheistic; which means that an absolute and good God is intrinsically possible, but absolute evil is not. There can be no such thing as "evil incarnate."

This is why all depictions of demons as horned, goat-hooved, bat-winged creatures derrived from pagan deities are totally without meaning. Devils are little more than indignant, mutilated angels.

I'm neither a socialist nor a doctrinaire collectivist, by the way. Any ideology invariably uses physical, economic or political violence when met with dissent of any kind. I refuse violence, and I refuse the 'us vs them' point of view inherent to all ideologies. I reject that ideology of yours.

SpaceChild
22-09-09, 13:58
Some quick(?) corrections relating to post #98:

The end of child labor was enabled by technological progress - but is ultimately a result of social democracy (funnily enough, an offspring of socialism).

...and technological progress was "enabled" by ______? Technology, properly defined, is the application of reason to the problem of survival through the method of productivity. Reason, in turn, requires liberty as a matter of course - try forcing an inventor to invent something new with your quaint imagery of "a gun to [the] head" (or just read the scene in the '57 novel "Atlas Shrugged" where collectivist bureaucrats try to force a brilliant inventor to help them gain absolute power - at once horrific and hilarious.)

Liberty begs the question: "Freedom from what, from whom?"

The antithesis of liberty, of reason, of productivity, of technology, is: coercion. Coercion is, as I said earlier, the essential modus operandi of collectivism in every variant - including democracy, which America in fact is not, and against which the Founders warned us. We are a representative Republic, not a democracy, and a damned good thing too. Just ask Socrates.

I always get a belly-laugh from the vestigial Left's seething rage against Nike. That ev...umm...ok, eee-vil company, which opens factories in impoverished countries and offers wages eclipsing the highest of prevailing pay in those locales; which has local people lined up literally for blocks, seeking a job with that...evil company, so that they can enjoy a standard of living they'd never had reason to dream about prior to that...evil company's arrival. Just...heinous! For shame!

God I love my Nikes! I haven't bought any other sneaker brand in as long as I can remember - mostly because they're great quality, also because Nike is a victim of gross injustice by rampaging Leftists and I despise injustice, and because Knight and Nike are pushing right past that evil rot regardless and...helping to transform the human condition for hundreds of thousands of people the world over, ultimately to the benefit of everyone.

I especially like wearing my Nikes when I head on down to the local EvilGreedyStarbucks for some tasty corporate caffeine. Yum!

...those pictures were taken before the days of Photoshop...

Nice sidestep. But "the truth is written all along the page," as the Yes boys once put it. What you're evading: Everything I said about the transitional phase between pre-capitalist agarian-feudalism and modern industrial society. History is not "I Dream of Jeannie." You do not just hug your boobs, blink your eyes and a whole stretch of socioeconomic evolution just gets the instant presto-chango. Basing an argument on that assumption is every bit as absurd.

The remainder rests entirely on the unquestioned premise that "infrastructure" is properly "public" rather than private:

- There's your odd 'package deal' that nonchalantly mixes one valid, Constitutionally-allowed government function (police) with Constitutionally unjustifiable functions (road and airport management, etc.,) as if there were no difference;

- another stunning bit of context-dropping, in the assertion that there is some collectivist symbiosis necessary for the existence of hospitals, rather than a simple market for goods and services (which context-dropping is a big part of why the current loons in charge of American government are trying to put out a burning medical industry with high-octane gasoline);

- a similar equivocation on the destinction between political power (which is raw coercive force, of necessity,) and economic "power," which exists only to the extent to which people choose - voluntarily - to trade with a given company or not, and which is therefore just as easily withdrawn as granted;

- and a flat-out, 180-degree falsehood: "Lack of regulation is what caused the current crisis." 1. To repeat yet again what I wrote on a different thread: the medical crisis is a direct result of a massive government intrusion into medicine in 1965, then progressive (pun if you want one) attempts to regulate the inevitable consequences of that intrusion, then regulate the consequences of the regulation, etc. ad snowballum; 2. The current economic crisis is the direct result of three bureaucrats - Barney Frank, Chistopher Dodd and Franklin Raines - attempting to turn the American mortgage industry into a housing welfare scam via regulations that forced lenders to accept unworthy debtors.

Those three ought to be in orange jumpsuits and ankle-and-waist-chains, incidentally, standing before a judge and answering to charges of destroying the wealth of literally millions of middle-class Americans.



And... "almighty Wikipedia"(!) LOL :vlol:

Word to the wise: Looking for factual information on political/philosophical issues at "reality-by-committee"-Wikipedia (http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html) is like looking for factual information on virginity at a whorehouse.

And just don't get me started on Jimmy Carter I (as differentiated from Jimmy Carter II, our current, fearless leader.) So lemme see - the old AIDS-ridden queen and lifelong terrorist Yassir Arafat, anger-management poster child and eco-cultist Albert Gore, Jimmy :cln: Carter... A ham sandwich could get a Nobel peace prize these days - and Alfred Nobel too is doing something like 6,000 RPM in his grave.

That goes double for the Bushes - either one. Bush II deserves some credit for his record of keeping us safe from terrorist attack in the post-911 world, but beyond that the greatest achievement of both of them was to define "RINO" in stark relief. Thanks for that, guys. We'll know better next time.

Ok, enough! Brevity! Gaah. :rolleyes:

Ward Dragon
22-09-09, 22:08
Bush II deserves some credit for his record of keeping us safe from terrorist attack in the post-911 world, but beyond that the greatest achievement of both of them was to define "RINO" in stark relief. Thanks for that, guys. We'll know better next time.


And yet the Republicans picked McCain of all people to be their nominee :hea: I'm still bitter over that because if the Republicans had actually picked somebody good, they probably would have won (as it is, McCain nearly tied Obama despite being such a terrible candidate) and then maybe we'd see some real "change" take place, not more of the same old super-sized government-controls-everything crap that we've been getting for the past several decades.

The government is divided into three distinct branches with separate powers for an extremely good reason - each is to keep the other two in check. Congress passes laws, the Executive enforces laws and handles foreign affairs, and the Judiciary evaluates the constitutionality of the laws in order to get rid of laws that are unjust. Yet now we have Supreme Court nominees who believe the Constitution doesn't matter and they should make decisions according to what's best for them, we've got Congress people complaining that they had no time to read the bills they are voting on because the thousand-page documents were made available only a day or two before the vote was held, and we've got all of the president's appointed "Czars" who have a ton of power but were never voted upon by Congress. It's all going haywire. The branches are merging into each other and each is gaining much more power than it was ever supposed to have. That cannot end well for us.

Larapink
22-09-09, 22:37
This is getting ridiculous, to be honest.

SpaceChild
23-09-09, 01:26
You said it - ridiculous. The U.S. nominally has two parties, but their "leaders" are all Golgafrinchan Management Consultants (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/minor-characters-from-the-hitchhiker-s-guide-to-the-galaxy/golgafrinchans.html) now, and have decided to make leaves legal tender and adopt generalized silliness as official state policy.

Big, big trouble ahead for a whole lot of incumbent slobs next year, particularly those with the "D as in Dethroned" after their names. 'Hope they've got employment waiting for them in the private sector, but given Obama/Pelosi/Reid's post-bong-hit economic policies, that's not looking likely...

But of course, anyone who dares dissent from this retro-'70s lunacy is a "racist," doncha know. Not even Obama or BillyBob Clinton (to their credit,) are signing onto Carter's self-revelatory projection.

If the consequences weren't so dangerous for what little remains of our "inalienable" rights, all of this would be the stuff of high comedy.
:tea:


_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

"I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest."
- Alexandre Dumas