I'm voting for McCain....
- Thread starter ccodiane
- Start date
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
What's next medicine? School kids are provided backpacks by the state? Or how about we teach school children state mandate!!! Then we would not have to worry about all this "popular opinion" bullshit and freedom hah! What a joke right?
Yeah socialism sucks it just puts all the wealth and power into the hands of a very select few. Whatever happened to charity or community action? Oh yeah I forgot thats the governments job now . . . Music and art? What's the point? It has to follow set standards and can not evolve past state taught mandate . . .
Still like socialism?
Ok what happens when the state can not provide?
They just eliminate the problem . . . . . does anybody know how many people Stalin killed? How many people Stalin's army forced into labor on the new state run farms?
When there is no fear of public revolt or loss of office corruption goes unchecked . . . But of course Stalin was just placing the needs of the many ahead of the few . . . .
So socialism sounds pretty inhumane and shitty huh?
If you still like socialism I can tell you more
tipsgnob
New Member
yep...music and art is a waste of government money...just think, we could probably by an extra M1A1 tank...What's next medicine? School kids are provided backpacks by the state? Or how about we teach school children state mandate!!! Then we would not have to worry about all this "popular opinion" bullshit and freedom hah! What a joke right?
Yeah socialism sucks it just puts all the wealth and power into the hands of a very select few. Whatever happened to charity or community action? Oh yeah I forgot thats the governments job now . . . Music and art? What's the point? It has to follow set standards and can not evolve past state taught mandate . . .
Still like socialism?
Ok what happens when the state can not provide?
They just eliminate the problem . . . . . does anybody know how many people Stalin killed? How many people Stalin's army forced into labor on the new state run farms?
When there is no fear of public revolt or loss of office corruption goes unchecked . . . But of course Stalin was just placing the needs of the many ahead of the few . . . .
So socialism sounds pretty inhumane and shitty huh?
If you still like socialism I can tell you more
ViRedd
New Member
Hey, Tips ...
There's a lot of young folks who post here in the forum who've probably never heard of the Birch Society. Why don't you tell them what you know about it ... other than that they are strict constitutionalists, that is.
Vi
tipsgnob
New Member
let me see if I understand...Small government is the answer . . . no central power is necessary, technology has allowed us to evolve past that.
we would be like 50 countries...some really poor and some really rich....
because of that....
there will be border crossings, of course...like europe...
some states could even decide to be communist...
hell...some might even chose to be socialist...
some may chose to be imperialist...oops...there goes your little country...
nevermind
tipsgnob
New Member
why don't you suck my dick...Vi????
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
Nothing to fight over tips . . . we are already and integrated country. Why would you want to lose local prosperity? People work together. Some central work but not on the level of government or politics . . .
undertheice
Well-Known Member
it takes more than technology to enable a people to rule themselves effectively. it takes a strong ethical base and a population that is educated and relatively enlightened. in case you haven't noticed, we've been moving in the opposite direction from all of these things. morality has become the great variable, it has become situational and ever changing. we are attempting to negate through legislation the consequences of bad or faulty decisions, in essence saying there is no wrong and doing away with the very reasons for personal responsibility.
education is little more than a bad joke. even in those schools that are not merely institutional day care centers, the state mandated curriculum is a depressing mixture of indoctrination and meaningless theories disguised as facts and learned by rote. little or no thought is given to developing the capacity for critical thinking or the philosophies that are behind each of our every day actions and thoughts. we are preparing our children to be little more than mindless consumers, trapped in the mundane and aware only of what they have been told the world owes them. we are teaching them that they are all special and, as such, are entitled to all the best this country has to offer.
an enlightened population takes their education and builds upon an ethical base to provide for a fair and equitable existence for everyone without having to have it legislated into existence. instead, we are attempting to legislate our way to utopia and succeeding only in penalizing success and mandating mediocrity.
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
Well said . . .
ViRedd
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd
Hey, Tips ...
There's a lot of young folks who post here in the forum who've probably never heard of the Birch Society. Why don't you tell them what you know about it ... other than that they are strict constitutionalists, that is.
Vi
why don't you suck my dick...Vi????
LMAO! Is that all ya got? Damn man, I thought you were an expert on the John Birch Society. Why else would you bring them up? Come on big guy, tell us all about the Birch Society. I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge on the subject.
Vi
Originally Posted by ViRedd
Hey, Tips ...
There's a lot of young folks who post here in the forum who've probably never heard of the Birch Society. Why don't you tell them what you know about it ... other than that they are strict constitutionalists, that is.
Vi
why don't you suck my dick...Vi????
LMAO! Is that all ya got? Damn man, I thought you were an expert on the John Birch Society. Why else would you bring them up? Come on big guy, tell us all about the Birch Society. I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge on the subject.
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
Damned well said.
Being in the sales business almost all of my life, I've seen the changes in ethics take place in a big way. It used to be that a hand shake was a man's bond. Now, people don't have a second thought about backing out of their promises, even though those promises are in writing.
Ethics starts with the small stuff, like showing up for appointments on time. Showing up for work every day. Being willing to put forth more effort for your employer than what one is being paid for. It means treating the customer as if he/she were the boss ... because in the final analysis, they really are the boss. It means being faithful to one's spouse and providing a healthy environment for one's family. It means taking the time to know your children's teacher's names and going to their classes on Parent Night. It means holding your children accountable for their actions. It means treating others with the same respect you like to be treated with.
You're absolutely right, undertheice ... liberty (and small government) is for a moral people.
Vi
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
Business has no ethics . . . .
Token
Well-Known Member
Good heavens. We've a grammarian here; how we need posters to do that, especially on this thread.
So, then you won't mind if I go ahead and disabuse you of your erroneous grammar here, right?
Right. That's what I thought--you don't mind. Cool.
Here goes:
A sentence is used when you are done with a statement
It would behoove you to insert either a period or a semicolon at the end of this, your bona fide first "statement"; that statement would be that a statement constitutes a [complete] sentence.
This will take entirely too much time for me to correct your grammar.
So maybe you can just lighten up and allow people to post and be themselves? Or would you prefer that we have a spelling bee and essay contest, right here, on this thread?
I was continuing my point the whole way through,
And you continued right along through this sentence and committed the grammar crime of . . . oh, no, not that one? The dreaded run-on sentence?
See statement below about MLK [Jr]:
MLK had a page long sentence that he wrote from jail,
The above is a complete sentence, as are all sentences marked only with commas in your above posts. Sentences contain subjects and predicates, though it is usually true that users of the language add on clauses, phrases, and so forth. Perhaps this has gone long enough for you to see how silly it is to condemn other posters regarding level of education?
And so forth. (A fragment, btw.)
so you can have a sentence that is as long as a paragraph.
Yes, that is true, but the sentences in question would still have subjects and predicates, and further, the sentences of which you speak, or rather type, most likely are very complex and compound sentences, of which there are many different types, though I feel quite certain that you know this, or you would not feel inclined to give in to compulsions to attempt to explain the makings of a complete sentence and what constitutes one, as you have attempted here, in your attempt to ridicule other posters.
Surely you did not mean to do this. Did you?
And I have no idea with what the world is going on around me, ha you watch that freedom to fascism bs, that is where the propaganda came from. I understand the world around me very well, I just don't allow weed to make me so paranoid that I really believe the Government is run by some elite people and let myself be scared into believing I have to accept what I have been dealt when I was born, I believe that yes rich people do run the Government but only to a extent, and most rich people are actually good people just a little smarter then the blue collar guy and anyone can become rich as long as there not a , and have flexible morales.
Peace,
Token
Peace to you too.
Do you like the "yellow" [journalism]?
Thanks for the editing
, I never really cared for English I was more into science art athletics and history. No I don't like yellow journalism, but happy people haven't forgotten about it! If you don't learn from history youre doomed to repeat it.
Leilani Garden
Well-Known Member
What's next medicine? School kids are provided backpacks by the state? Or how about we teach school children state mandate!!! Then we would not have to worry about all this "popular opinion" bullshit and freedom hah! What a joke right?
Yeah socialism sucks it just puts all the wealth and power into the hands of a very select few. Whatever happened to charity or community action? Oh yeah I forgot thats the governments job now . . . Music and art? What's the point? It has to follow set standards and can not evolve past state taught mandate . . .
Still like socialism?
Ok what happens when the state can not provide?
They just eliminate the problem . . . . . does anybody know how many people Stalin killed? How many people Stalin's army forced into labor on the new state run farms?
When there is no fear of public revolt or loss of office corruption goes unchecked . . . But of course Stalin was just placing the needs of the many ahead of the few . . . .
So socialism sounds pretty inhumane and shitty huh?
If you still like socialism I can tell you more
I think that a lot of people who keep pushing this "Obama equals socialism" issue are getting their talking points from Faux News and other right-wing "news" outlets. That's where this is coming from, imo. It's a last ditch issue to keep using buzz words designed the scare the heck out of still-undecided voters.
And for the record, communism and socialism are not the same thing. They're not, but you'd never think so if you're watching Faux News or listening to right-wing folks on AM talk radio.
There is a big, big difference between a capitalist society with ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM and outright communist societies, such as was the USSR.
No, I am not defending Stalin. He killed way more than the Nazis and fascists of WW2 did. I'm talking about a capitalist society with ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM, not communism.
ANY kind of totalitarianism is wrong and is destined to self-destruct. Yet whenever I visit this thread, I keep seeing people equating Obama with communism. There's not a chance in hell that is going to happen, no way. If anything, he'd be voted right back out in four years: remember when Carter tried taxing at 70%? Keep that in mind. Just how well did that go over?
As for state schools, art and so on? That's not true that free expression is always mandated, or whatever that post meant. My own high schooler wanted to do a sculpture of a pentagam for an advanced art class and was swiftly reprimanded by the idiotic raving Christian teacher. And that teacher was swiftly reprimanded by me, when I let her know, in writing, that since this is a PUBLIC school, and there are kids in there doing art work with crucifixes and such, that if she persisted and did not allow my child to do artwork with the pentagram, I'd be taking it up with the school board, the local papers and whoever else I had to, just to make my point: there is a separation of church and state in this country, as guaranteed by the constitution. So if my child is not allowed to a pentagram, then all the good christians have to stop making artwork out of a tool of execution (crucifix). Problem solved. I won that round.
Our schools cannot wrap themselves around the chosen religion of the majority and punish those who don't march to their drummer. Don't know what else the griping about art in schools was about, and I don't care. A culture that eschews art will find its population a bunch of philistines: people smugly opposed and indifferent to cultural values and the contributions of art to society. You want an artless society? Why? Methinks you make such remarks as that because it's a sound bit you heard from one of your pundits. I bet you have nothing to back it up with.
Re the John Birch society. It's a right of right organization, founded by John Birch in the late 50's during the height of the communist scares, ie, during the time of McCarthyism. Granted, the US had some reason to fear communism, but not to the extent that we did--going after artists and others of that ilk and blacklisting them like they did. McCarthyism is a pock mark in our history, one I would hardly think any rational person would want to go back to.
Brich was also opposed to the teaching of evolution THEORY in schools, and to my knowledge, this is still the case amongst his followers. Evolution is a sound theory--as is gravity--so why anyone who claims to be informed would oppose its teaching is beyond me, unless they've got some religious agenda. That's my suspicion, anyway. Creationism and Intelligent Design are for PRIVATELY funded institutions to teach their young (and themselves). I don't say this with contempt, either. Personally, I know that evolution is a sound THEORY, but I have faith that tells me that there is something akin to intelligent design, ie, there's some force, some creator, something that set all of this into motion. But that is my own personal belief, one that cannot be proven, so I'd never force it on anyone else and I'll never, ever consent to it being taught in public schools.
What else was there? Oh yeah, if McCain had chosen Romney, yes, I think he'd have a much better chance. I'm guessing McCain did not choose Romney as a running mate because the polls showed long ago that many, many, many so-called mainstream christians would never vote for a Mormon. So much for Romney.
And to the person who was corrected by me for the atrocious grammar: maybe if you don't have much of a grip on grammar, then you ought not create posts in which you come across as instruction others in proper sentence construction. Open your mouth wide and insert your foot.
Regarding business that used to be conducted via a handshake. The population has grown significantly since the time you are referring to, Vi. With more and more players, of course there is the potential--and the reality--that there will be those who do not honor a handshake. Why is this even relevant to the discussion at hand? I did not follow your reasoning there.
You also wrote that small government . . . is for a moral people. Now, define morality--in a way that can be accepted by everyone. We're a democratic republic, composed of people with different religious background and personally held beliefs. So define morality in a way that can be accepted by all, or at least most, of us. How you can call yourself a libertarian and make such a statement, I don't know.
Regarding your comments about workers/employees doing more than they should for the good of the company they work for I have two comments/questions for you.
1. What do you make of CEOs making out like bandits, at the expense of the "little folks" who are out there every day, facing the customers? Are you aware of the stats on this? How about walmart? Comments that defend your statement that can apply to this rotten organization?
2. Ever heard of Basset Furniture from Basset Virginia and what they did to their employees back in the golden era of business of which you speak? Google that one and see what you come up. That's the kind of employer abuse that liberals are very much opposed to. Sure, great--do the best you can to make the most money you can, but do it in a way that does not make slaves out of its employees.
3. Okay, I said I had two comments, but I'll toss in a third. Have you ever worked in customer service? I have. And I can you first hand, the customer is not always right. In fact, a lot of them are scam artists just like you are describing in business transacations involving just the business enterprises. Have you read Nickel & Dimed? The customer is not always right. In fact, too many of them are trying very hard to get something for free, and by golly, once something does not go their way, they are prone to lying in order to get their freebies. Yes, businesses should always be grateful for their customers--without the customers spending money, businesses go bankrupt; but you are looking at the world with rose-colored glasses if you think that the customer is always right. We're a greedy people, and this shows up in customer relations/service all the time. Just ask anyone who works in customer service about the kind of abuse they put up with every single day.
And the comment about business not being about ethics made by New Growth: that's correct. Technically and theoretically speaking, businesses are not about ethics. They are about making the most money they can with the fewest resources spent. And that is why all arguments about running the government as a business are logically flawed. The government is not supposed to be a money-making enterprise.
Regarding small government, has anyone else noticed the far-reaching arm of the government under the Bush 2 administration? They can now listen in on our phone calls, see what books we are checking out of our libraries, and so forth. SO much for John Birch's beliefs--which include a staunchly held belief in the right to privacy.
carry on.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Carry On?
What if I don't want to carry on,
. What if I want to spend some time poking holes in your argument for Socialism vs Communism vs Free Market Economies.
Socialism is Communism is Marxism no matter how you slice it, just as a tomato is still a tomato even if you cut it in half a dozen times. There is no difference between Socialism and Communism, as both are the same ideology. The only difference is that Communism was the term chosen by Stalin as opposed to Socialism, but both words can be used interchangeably. Communist Russia was a Socialist Nation.
Communist China is a Socialist Nation.
Socialist North Korea is a Communist Nation.
No difference at all in the meaning of the words. The argument that we ought to have elements of socialism is flawed to the core, because it fails to adequately address the fact that a healthy community must be built from with in, and can not be built from with out.
One would think that after nearly sixty years under FDR's Socialist systems everyone in the United States would understand the fact that Socialism is a failed flawed ideology that will never work on a large scale, because of the tendency of leaders to rise on groups bigger than one hundred, and thus it will always lead to a grossly oversized government that steals from everyone to line its own pockets, or the pockets of those that kiss its asses sufficiently (witness the Bail Out.)
No, Socialism and Communism are the same thing, and both are built on the same flawed ideology.
ViRedd
New Member
Leilani Garden
Well-Known Member
There is no difference between Socialism and Communism
Oh yeah? Then how come we have nations on this globe that have socialist policies and such, and then we have outright communists?
You don't get it because you do not want to get it. You are so god awful up in arms about the taxes that you pay, that you jump on any bandwagon that will paint any sort of socialist ELEMENTS with a broad brush stroke, trying to make it all look like communisim. Does the UK look like a bunch of pinko commies to you? Seriously?
Please. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IF YOU DON" T GET IT, GO LOOK IT UP. I'm done looking things up for people tonight.
Oh and one more thing. You are in your early/mid-twenties, correct? How old are your parents? What do you think your thoughts might be on things like universal health care if one or both of your parents were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and there was no way to treat that illness until and unless their assets were liquidated? Are you willing to tell your own parents NO on something like this? Think hard, my friend. It's happening to a lot of middle class people right now--how to get their loved ones treated without losing everything.
And how about if you lost your job. In this economy, you know, you could see that happen. Suppose you had a child. You ran out of money (and it's happening right now to a lot of people). Suppose your child was diagnosed with leukemia. That does happen, you know. What do you think your thoughts on all of your socialist rants would be if your child was denied treatment all because you lost your job and there were no socialist ELEMENTS available? Ponder that one: watching your child die because you were out of money.
It's so easy to gripe and complain about your own taxes until such a time comes that you have to see things for yourself, ie, become a victim of your own rhetoric.
And this:
The argument that we ought to have elements of socialism is flawed to the core, because it fails to adequately address the fact that a healthy community must be built from with in, and can not be built from with ou
Oh yeah? Flawed to the core? Well, let me tell you who taught me that little tidbit: my own father, a highly educated ECONOMICS major from a nationally renowned university, who was a lifelong republican and dedicated to the free market. That's who showed me that one. And he and I could go round and round, debating each other. This man, a very reasonable person, concluded that what we need is a mainly a capitalist society--because COMMUNISM destroys incentive, while capitalism encourages it--with ELEMENTS of socialism, because to leave out those elements would make us no better than those in Calcutta, watching people starve to death on the streets and just accepting that as common place, everyday life.
Don't tell me that this argument is flawed. It's NOT. YOu want to live in a society that lets children die because their parents don't earn enough or, worse, are dead? How about that scenario?
You're dead wrong, and I think I've finally figured out that your only agenda is your own. And yet? You're too young to have parents aging and/or dying on you, a spouse who develops a brain tumor for which the most innovative treatments are unavailable to you because you do not have the right insurance, or a child who could fall victim to a deadly disease (or even an accident), leaving you to watch the horror.
It's not a flawed argument. It's one heck of a lot more reasonable than unleashing social darwinism. And don't forget, you yourself could need some help one day. If so, and you've gotten your way and all social programs are kaput, I hope you remember my face
Oh yeah? Then how come we have nations on this globe that have socialist policies and such, and then we have outright communists?
You don't get it because you do not want to get it. You are so god awful up in arms about the taxes that you pay, that you jump on any bandwagon that will paint any sort of socialist ELEMENTS with a broad brush stroke, trying to make it all look like communisim. Does the UK look like a bunch of pinko commies to you? Seriously?
Please. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IF YOU DON" T GET IT, GO LOOK IT UP. I'm done looking things up for people tonight.
Oh and one more thing. You are in your early/mid-twenties, correct? How old are your parents? What do you think your thoughts might be on things like universal health care if one or both of your parents were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and there was no way to treat that illness until and unless their assets were liquidated? Are you willing to tell your own parents NO on something like this? Think hard, my friend. It's happening to a lot of middle class people right now--how to get their loved ones treated without losing everything.
And how about if you lost your job. In this economy, you know, you could see that happen. Suppose you had a child. You ran out of money (and it's happening right now to a lot of people). Suppose your child was diagnosed with leukemia. That does happen, you know. What do you think your thoughts on all of your socialist rants would be if your child was denied treatment all because you lost your job and there were no socialist ELEMENTS available? Ponder that one: watching your child die because you were out of money.
It's so easy to gripe and complain about your own taxes until such a time comes that you have to see things for yourself, ie, become a victim of your own rhetoric.
And this:
The argument that we ought to have elements of socialism is flawed to the core, because it fails to adequately address the fact that a healthy community must be built from with in, and can not be built from with ou
Oh yeah? Flawed to the core? Well, let me tell you who taught me that little tidbit: my own father, a highly educated ECONOMICS major from a nationally renowned university, who was a lifelong republican and dedicated to the free market. That's who showed me that one. And he and I could go round and round, debating each other. This man, a very reasonable person, concluded that what we need is a mainly a capitalist society--because COMMUNISM destroys incentive, while capitalism encourages it--with ELEMENTS of socialism, because to leave out those elements would make us no better than those in Calcutta, watching people starve to death on the streets and just accepting that as common place, everyday life.
Don't tell me that this argument is flawed. It's NOT. YOu want to live in a society that lets children die because their parents don't earn enough or, worse, are dead? How about that scenario?
You're dead wrong, and I think I've finally figured out that your only agenda is your own. And yet? You're too young to have parents aging and/or dying on you, a spouse who develops a brain tumor for which the most innovative treatments are unavailable to you because you do not have the right insurance, or a child who could fall victim to a deadly disease (or even an accident), leaving you to watch the horror.
It's not a flawed argument. It's one heck of a lot more reasonable than unleashing social darwinism. And don't forget, you yourself could need some help one day. If so, and you've gotten your way and all social programs are kaput, I hope you remember my face
HighKittie
Active Member
Ok......McCain is going to drop dead and then some stupid bitch will be president. Frankly, I would rather have an educated man running the country when Obama gets taken down. That being said, I think we need new and fresh ideas, and Obama has them. He will lower taxes and get us out of resession. McCain will tax our roofs from over our heads, and that stupid bitch will use it to buy clothes.
But seriously, you should all know that Obama has already won.
And really seriously.........are we really stoners getting all POLITICAL?!?!??! That is an oxy-moron, folks.
But seriously, you should all know that Obama has already won.
And really seriously.........are we really stoners getting all POLITICAL?!?!??! That is an oxy-moron, folks.