|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: 9-11-01 was an attack on our homeland. It was not by another nation, just a bunch of nuts living in squalor in Afghanistan. What's the difference? Should terror attacks on U.S. homeland be considered less serious depending on what organization does them? Were the victims of 9-11 less dead than they would have been if the attacks had come from "another nation"?
Reaganomics and voodoo economics, trickle down, were all President Braindead's ideas and nothing trickled down, instead it was the biggest redistribution of wealth in history.....it was "gush-up economics". When we hear republicans claim they want smaller government it is code for "we want to make government run just as crappy as is possible, so we can transfer as much as possible into our cronie's private hands." Once all the functions of government are privatized they can really fuck us, and continue the move back to a slave society. It's called free markets and limited government. It's the foundation of U.S. society. The tradition of U.S. society. No system is perfect, but you can't show any historical examples of a bigger government system where everyone has a more equal standard of living than in the U.S. I'm reminded of a quote by Thomas Sowell, concerning disparities in income. I have to paraphrase it, since I don't have the exact quote, but I remember it well. As you may know, Sowell is a fairly successful nationally syndicated columnist, author, and economics professor.
quote: He went on to explain that had this been in a dictatorship, a socialist or communist country, or any bigger government country, he would have been the one driving the brand new car, and his assistant would have had the faded older car. Chances are, he liked having a $300,000 house instead of a $200,000 one, and/or was putting a young adult child through school, and to swing one or both of those things he had to sacrifice having a brand new car. His young assistant, on the other hand, probably lived with her parents, or in a very small apartment, and it took probably half or more of her income to make payments on her brand new car. But it's what she wanted, and, with other sacrifices, she was able to make that choice. In big government societies that you dream of, the successful, older guy would have the brand new car, he wouldn't have to make ANY sacrifices to have it. He would snap his finger and it would be provided for him, at the expense of the (unwilling) society. His young assistant would NOT have a new car, there is no way she could sacrifice enough to have it. Disagree? Then give me some present or historical examples where socialist societies have more evenly distributed income than the U.S. currently has.
I do see a brand new ballgame of threats to the U. S. It is the Republicans and the Tea Party and the bible thumpers and the bigots and the people like you who support them while you spout crap about terrible big government. Be specific about the new threats you fear. We didn't have gay marriage a decade ago, what happened? We had better morals 50 years ago than today, what happened? How can you say that the status quo creates NEW threats?
They are not interested in liberty. They are doing everything they can to limit the liberties of everyone but the ultra rich and limiting any rules about how corporations should behave in a civilized society. Free markets are the best rule makers. A lot of corporations have failed in the U.S. because of them.
Morality? The morality they practice is cutting the last safety lines for the elderly and for poor children. Denying health care to poor children, denying health care to women. "Safety lines" (handouts) that weren't there only a few decades ago. Stealing productivity from one and giving it to another for votes isn't moral. It's amazing how the sales of body parts from the murdered unborn has been transformed into "women's health".
marc9000 writes: I was a teenager in the 1960's. When both Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King were shot, there was practically no mention of any type of gun control, from the Democrats OR the news madia. Back then, at least some Democrats respected the U.S. enough to not blame society in general every time an unfortunate violent act took place in a free society. I was in high school when JFK was shot and as I remember there was a huge stink about the fact that Oswald bought a mail order rifle and there was an immediate call to stop that. A "huge stink"? Our memories are different.
quote: Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia Kennedy was shot in 1963. It "was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968". No law was passed in 63, 64, 65, 66, or 67. Ho-hum. You have a funny definition of "big stink". Looks like my memory is better than yours. Or more honest. The 68 law was prompted by the emotion inspired by further public figure shootings. Signed into law by a president that knew he had no chance for re-election.
You know disagreeing with you does not mean we don't respect or love this nation. We want to learn from our mistakes and try to make this country better. We are honest enough to admit that we have made mistakes and we are ashamed and embarrassed and want to do better. You bunch have lied to yourselves for so long that you believe all the lies. My bunch knows that unproven experimentation can easily do more irreversible harm than good. Punishing the successful and rewarding failure isn't "doing better".
And I ask, "Why not?" They should have been. I would bet that every single African American in this country wanted these symbols of bigotry and hatred and slavery torn down, especially from public property that they paid taxes to support. It is their country too. Not every single one, since there are pictures of southern blacks proudly holding confederate flags all over the net. How does a symbol of actual history threaten anything about the U.S?
Again, so what? Our economy will never recover until money starts to circulate. That means people need to spend money, even if it is for the basic necessities of life, but they have to have money before they can spend it. Do you really think that people who work 40 or more hours a week should not make enough to support themselves and their family? History shows that when the government meddles in economics, people who work 40 hours or more per week get less and less. Dreams of a perfect society aren't reality.
Do you really think that CEOs who don't actually do any work really are worth millions or billions of dollars a year and that it is good for our economy for them to hoard their wealth so that it does not circulate through the economy? Free markets don't pay one dime to ANYONE who does no work. The only way that happens is through government corruption. More government doesn't solve problems caused by more government.
Your dislike of science and scientists and people who want to raise the education level of the people who live here, so as a nation we can be self-reliant, and not have to fear everyone that does not live here, baffles me. We have differing views of "education". John Adams said;
quote: A history education would be nice. Our constitution doesn't work with atheism, and we're watching proof of it, as it's increasingly disregarded and downplayed by the left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Bullshit. Ever wonder why you cannot buy a rifle mail order as Oswald did? You might want to research stuff before you display your total lack of knowledge. Is your ignorance willful and on purpose? Uh, I don't have to research my own life experiences. Please tell me more about all those gun laws that were passed in 1964, 1965, 1966. Or some 60's video clips of Democrats shrieking about gun control like they do today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
marc9000 writes: No system is perfect, but you can't show any historical examples of a bigger government system where everyone has a more equal standard of living than in the U.S. Ever heard of Scandinavia? Apparently these welfare states have a much lower degree of income inequality than the USA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Perhaps you could get them to agree with Reagan, then, and say that "Church and state are, and must remain, separate". I liked that idea of liberty. It was the same idea of liberty preached by Madison and Jefferson. But of late it seems to have fallen out of favor among conservatives. It only seems that way because you don't understand it. There is a world of difference between one denomination of religion that is required of all citizens, versus the general morality of the Judeo-Christianity that the founders recognized as a sound basis for a free society.
Perhaps this has something to do with what Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee in 1964, warned us about:
quote: Yes, and he lost his election. But if he were alive today, and was taking note of today's Democrat party as opposed to the 60's, what he said could look more like this;
quote: Maybe Trump will say something like this tonight. You'll be watching won't you? After all, this is your thread. Do you think maybe the time has come when, (if you want to be taken seriously) that you'll have to address what he actually says, rather than just making fun of his hair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Ever heard of Scandinavia? Apparently these welfare states have a much lower degree of income inequality than the USA. Yes I have, and I don't see a mass exodus of U.S. citizens moving there. Norway gets by with its socialism largely because they're loaded with oil to export, and don't have to deal with a multi billion dollar EPA. I'd bet that they don't waste billions per year "researching" global warming either. They're not the policeman of the world like the U.S. is, and don't have the diverse population that the U.S. has. Much more here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Never said that's what we see. But we do see a lower degree of income inequality.
I don't see a mass exodus of U.S. citizens moving there. Norway gets by with its socialism largely because they're loaded with oil to export, and don't have to deal with a multi billion dollar EPA.
You're right, Norway has an economy based on exporting resources. That's what countries do. They have a mixed economy like ours, it's not socialist per se. And they do have an environmental agency that was created in the mid-70s just like our EPA.
I'd bet that they don't waste billions per year "researching" global warming either.
I'll bet they spend a lot of time and money doing just that. Are you suggesting that money spent on researching climate change is by definition money wasted?
They're not the policeman of the world like the U.S. is, and don't have the diverse population that the U.S. has.
If you're suggesting that invading countries is a costly foreign policy tactic, I agree. And I'm not sure what "diversity" has to do with income inequality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
So you got nothing.
Do you admit gun control measures were enacted in the 1960's?Gun control act of 1968, look it up. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes I have, and I don't see a mass exodus of U.S. citizens moving there. Well no. Most U.S. citizens don't speak Norwegian, and Norway has immigration laws.
Norway gets by with its socialism largely because they're loaded with oil to export ... Yeah, it's unfair to compare a resource-rich country like Norway with a desolate barren hellhole like the United States, which has no resources except dirty sand infested with poisonous snakes. We can hardly be expected to compete with them.
... and don't have to deal with a multi billion dollar EPA. I'd bet that they don't waste billions per year "researching" global warming either. No. No, they don't have the EPA. They have something called the Norwegian Environment Agency, which has a completely different three-letter acronym.
They're not the policeman of the world like the U.S. is, and don't have the diverse population that the U.S. has. So it's not the poisonous snakes dragging us down so much as those brown people with their burritos and their mariachi music. We knew they must be to blame for something, and now thanks to you we know what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
It's called free markets and limited government. It's the foundation of U.S. society. The tradition of U.S. society. No system is perfect, but you can't show any historical examples of a bigger government system where everyone has a more equal standard of living than in the U.S. (...) Disagree? Then give me some present or historical examples where socialist societies have more evenly distributed income than the U.S. currently has. That's so astonishingly incorrect it's hard to believe you understand the words to mean the same thing as other English-speakers. It's an uncontrovertible fact the US has one of the least equal standards of living of any rich country. Every metric of equality shows the US as being one of the least equal countries there is. Wikipedia's list of countries by wealth distribution, for example, which is based on a study by the National Bureau for Economic Research, has only four countries with a less equal distribution of wealth. Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Databook from 2013 includes only 5 countries with less equal income than the US. The OECD's income inequality measures, taking into account taxes and government payments, shows the US as less equal than any OECD members except Turkey, Chile and Mexico. Now, there's more to life than equality of income or wealth. Many countries which are more equal than the US are quite poor, and average Americans have better standards of living than average people in lots of other countries - even if some of those countries are more equal. There is an argument to be made that the same mechanisms which lead to the huge inequality in the US allow everyone to advance overall. I don't agree with many of these types of arguments - but they're sensible arguments nonetheless. To claim that the US is good because it's one of the most equal countries in the world, however, is not a sensible argument. It's risible and clearly false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Uh, I don't have to research my own life experiences. Apparently your life experiences in the sixties did not include taking a detailed look at what was going on in politics. A look at actual history tells us that the assassination is basically the start of the modern attitudes about gun control. In the year after Kennedy was killed there were a dozen gun control bills introduced in Congress. I don't believe that has happened in any similar period since. Yet you don't remember any of that. I'll also note that while your statement that you were a teenager during the sixties is true, your statement is only true with respect to the late sixties (early to late 1968)when you finally reached the wizened age of 13. You were something like 8 or 9 years old when Kennedy was shot, so your recollection for most of that period is not that of a teenager. I would suggest that you drop this line of argument. Like many of your claims, this one does not stand up to the light of day. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : Refine age estimate Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marco nine-thouseo writes: I don't see a mass exodus of U.S. citizens moving there. Never said that's what we see. Since we don't see it, it's a strong indicator that socialist countries are missing some things that the U.S. has because it's not as socialist as the left would like it to be.
You're right, Norway has an economy based on exporting resources. That's what countries do. They have a mixed economy like ours, it's not socialist per se. In message 243 you called Scandinavia a "welfare state". Now that we're specifically on Norway, you seem to have changed your description.
I'll bet they spend a lot of time and money doing just that. Are you suggesting that money spent on researching climate change is by definition money wasted? That would be an emphatic YES.
If you're suggesting that invading countries is a costly foreign policy tactic, I agree. And I'm not sure what "diversity" has to do with income inequality. Diversity in morality and worldviews requires a lot more cost for one common government to enforce laws, and promote peace within that society. More diversity in a population would naturally result in more wealth inequality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
So you got nothing. Do you admit gun control measures were enacted in the 1960's? Gun control act of 1968, look it up. You missed my Message 241. When you're part of a gang, you should try to read all messages. This outnumbered poster isn't going to repeat himself to everyone individually for their convenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Yeah, it's unfair to compare a resource-rich country like Norway with a desolate barren hellhole like the United States, which has no resources except dirty sand infested with poisonous snakes. We can hardly be expected to compete with them. The U.S. has resources, but its government has grown so big it's largely handcuffed in its ability to use them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
That's so astonishingly incorrect it's hard to believe you understand the words to mean the same thing as other English-speakers. It's astonishing that you SNIPPED OUT the example that I gave. I used the terms "equal standard of living" as well as "evenly distributed income". There is a difference, and my example that you snipped shows it. Let's use Cuba as an example. The Castro family is worth about $900 million. Bill Gates, Donald Trump etc are worth billions. But Cuba has far more dirt poor people than the U.S. has. Even though Castro has far less money than so many billionaires in the U.S., it's safe to say that he has all he wants to eat, and sleeps in an air conditioned/heated bedroom every night. Most of the poor in the U.S have all they want to eat, and sleep in an air conditioned/heated bedroom every night. The dirt poor of Cuba, many South American countries, many African countries who have more evenly distributed incomes than the U.S. DON"T have all they want to eat, and have never experienced air conditioning. I'd bet Castro doesn't drive a faded 7 year old car, and I'd bet his servants don't drive new ones.
Now, there's more to life than equality of income or wealth. Many countries which are more equal than the US are quite poor, and average Americans have better standards of living than average people in lots of other countries - even if some of those countries are more equal. There is an argument to be made that the same mechanisms which lead to the huge inequality in the US allow everyone to advance overall. I don't agree with many of these types of arguments - but they're sensible arguments nonetheless. Why don't you agree with them? What's not logical about them? What other (more socialist) countries do you see as examples that the U.S. should follow, to arrive at their more equal income distribution, while maintaining the mechanisms that the U.S. currently has that allows everyone to advance overall? I don't think one exists, I think the utopia that the U.S. left seeks is an impossible one. It's desire is a lack of appreciation for what they have. The very poor in the U.S. have it much better than than the upper middle class in the U.S. had it 100 years ago.
To claim that the US is good because it's one of the most equal countries in the world, however, is not a sensible argument. It's risible and clearly false. It's as much, or more equal than other countries in terms of basic necessities. The big government meddling of its system could very well cost many of its citizens those necessities. History is loaded with examples. 1940's Germany is one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024