This makes me miss my Ipad... oh well. I hate communism.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 30, 2012, 11:46:19 AM
This makes me miss my Ipad... oh well. I hate communism.
What's wrong with communism
Nothing
Everything.
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
Actually this haha
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
You took the words right out of my brain cells.
Human nature is to be far too greedy.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 30, 2012, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
You took the words right out of my brain cells.
Human nature is to be far too greedy.
Agree. But is there really a better system? Each one has tgeir pros and cons. I just thought you were gonna say you don't buy iPads because where they are made
There is no worse system than communism.
Steve jobs was a commie. That's why. He's dead now, so it makes it okay. Lmao.
He so wasn't. Did you read the biography?
Quote from: Piotr on May 30, 2012, 07:44:31 PM
He so wasn't. Did you read the biography?
I did not. Though, I have heard good things.
Quote from: Piotr on May 30, 2012, 07:41:51 PM
There is no worse system than communism.
Dictatorship
Yea if your the dictator or not
Anarchy is worse. I'd rather have organized crap than unorganized crap.
Quote from: Rass on May 30, 2012, 08:52:11 PM
Yea if your the dictator or not
Besides hitler and Castro. Who was an "evil" dictator?
Well I would consider any king a dictator and I do not think any of them were good for the common people.
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators
Quote from: Rass on May 30, 2012, 10:09:11 PM
Well I would consider any king a dictator and I do not think any of them were good for the common people.
You're talking about a completely different form of government. Monarchy. It's run completely different from a dictatorship.
I know who the dictators are. My point being, you don't hear about them in the news ruining countries. There are plenty of them that successfully ran their government. I may not be in support of that form of government, but I believe it's way more prosperous than any communist or socialist country has or ever will be.
I would have to say I will have to end it here on my side before I make to long of a post. I think it would be a better conversation over a beer or two.
Quote from: Rass on May 30, 2012, 10:30:34 PM
I would have to say I will have to end it here on my side before I make to long of a post. I think it would be a better conversation over a beer or two.
Cheers to that, mate.
Unfortunatly, I hate .politics.. Though I will defend, to the death, what I believe in.
You are mixing two things, a government system with economic system. You can have monarchy + communism (North Korea) or dictatorship + free market (Taiwan a few years back) or democracy + communism (EU is heading there). There is no worse than communism.
France elected a socialist president.
Once again. Let's all thank the French for their wonderful contribution to the world.
Lol jk.
I can say that because I'm German. Born and raised. :D. Haha
But really...
Well, Germany is not really less socialist than France I'm afraid.
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 02:51:01 AM
Well, Germany is not really less socialist than France I'm afraid.
Hence the reason I moved to the USA. Just finally got my citizenship in July after four years in the army.
Fair enough. I'm thinking about moving to New Hampshire ;)
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
In the famous words of George Orwell: absolute power corrupts absolutely
Quote from: Kuberr on May 30, 2012, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 30, 2012, 08:52:11 PM
Yea if your the dictator or not
Besides hitler and Castro. Who was an "evil" dictator?
Islam Karimov, dictator of Uzbekistan. Had to do a school paper on him. Nasty guy
Quote from: GoJuDragon on May 31, 2012, 11:19:53 AM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
In the famous words of George Orwell: absolute power corrupts absolutely
Quite right sir.
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
Feels kinda weird for me to be on a public forum in a discussion about .politics. and no threat of being banned lol.
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
I think you may have that mixed up. Conservatives are the nazis.
Liberals are the communists. Lol
Quote from: GoJuDragon on May 31, 2012, 11:19:53 AM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
In the famous words of George Orwell: absolute power corrupts absolutely
So true
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: GoJuDragon on May 31, 2012, 11:19:53 AM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
In the famous words of George Orwell: absolute power corrupts absolutely
Quite right sir.
Actually, not. It was Lord Acton and I would have difficult time agreeing with his statement.
I honestly believe a little bit of power corrupts everyone.
Join the military, and you'll soon agree.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
I think you may have that mixed up. Conservatives are the nazis.
Liberals are the communists. Lol
The nazis are national socialists, not conservatives. Mind you, European terminology is quite different from the American and I'm Polish/British.
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
I think you may have that mixed up. Conservatives are the nazis.
Liberals are the communists. Lol
The nazis are national socialists, not conservatives. Mind you, European terminology is quite different from the American and I'm Polish/British.
I know what they are. It's just an ongoing joke I've had because I don't want to choose a side.
I was born and raised in a socialist/communist country. For me the side is a no brainer :P
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:43:53 AM
I was born and raised in a socialist/communist country. For me the side is a no brainer :P
That would do it then.
Tbh even if communism is the most perfect on paper
I'm an entrepreneur we invent things we produce things
And honestly I think a mans worth should be determined by how many lives they effect for the good of mankind
And I feel if I work harder to make things easier or better for others
I deserve to earn more and live more comfortably than people who are mindless drones who just want a paycheck
Everyone has a role to fill I just decide mine
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
Feels kinda weird for me to be on a public forum in a discussion about .politics. and no threat of being banned lol.
I'd like for us to have more of this sort of thing. There will be no lock-down, moving, or banning as long as people are respectful to each other and we can all talk like adults (even if you aren't one yet). And by that, I don't mean adult language, kids are still going to be reading this.
I agree.
We can have debates without name calling and verbal assaults.
Communism doesn't work as long as people see and value themselves as individuals over a part of a larger society. Capitalism works fine, because people tend to act more out of self interest, not something that gets rewarded in Communism.
What do you think was the economic structure on Star Trek (TNG)? I'm not being rhetorical, does anyone know as fact?
In my opinion communism is flawed in part because, due to the fact that every1 gets the same amount of the same things, a person who does no work will get the same things as a person who works their butt off. Which, please excuse my low level wording, I couldn't think of a better word, it just isn't fair. People should be rewarded based on the amount of work the do and how well it is done
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.
I think you may have that mixed up. Conservatives are the nazis.
Liberals are the communists. Lol
The nazis are national socialists, not conservatives. Mind you, European terminology is quite different from the American and I'm Polish/British.
The Nazi party was a fascist, highly right wing conservative, party.......complete opposite of national socialists. Granted his style of fascism was more of a dictatorship.
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
Quote from: GoJuDragon on May 31, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
In my opinion communism is flawed in part because, due to the fact that every1 gets the same amount of the same things, a person who does no work will get the same things as a person who works their butt off. Which, please excuse my low level wording, I couldn't think of a better word, it just isn't fair. People should be rewarded based on the amount of work the do and how well it is done
There are people in Capitalism being given millions of dollars while sitting at home doing nothing.
And that's (in my opinion) wrong
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
I don't think a national socialist is the same as the kind you're thinking of.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: GoJuDragon on May 31, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
In my opinion communism is flawed in part because, due to the fact that every1 gets the same amount of the same things, a person who does no work will get the same things as a person who works their butt off. Which, please excuse my low level wording, I couldn't think of a better word, it just isn't fair. People should be rewarded based on the amount of work the do and how well it is done
There are people in Capitalism being given millions of dollars while sitting at home doing nothing.
Ding ding ding ding..... All systems are flawed because of human nature.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.
Who are we to set the parameters of evolution? Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.
Some {tibalt the fiend blooded} advocates out there, at least it's provoking intellectual discussion
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.
I agree. I don't think human nature will ever get passed greed. Greed is the downfall of all empires and governments.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 04:56:34 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.
Who are we to set the parameters of evolution? Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.
Mmhhm, look at history. Even if you do think that humans evolved from monkeys or some other lesser life form, were the monkeys less selfish then humans are today? If anything we are more selfish, which means that evolution did not make things better.
Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?
If human nature is bad and was not there when humans did not exist, then it is not logical to think that evolution makes things better. In fact, the evidence shows that it will most likely make things worse.
To answer your question straight up, cltrn81: Being a logical and a rational human being who can process thoughts and draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, I am perfectly qualified to set boundries on evolution and what it can and cannot do.
I think this is turning into a little bit of a morality discussion, just noticing.
First thing: This thread is called ".politics.". Did you know that most of what politicians advertise to get elected has to do with morals? (does he support abortion? What's his view on money? Does he even believe truth exists? etc.)
Second thing: the recent posts have to do with philosophy and history more than morals. We were talking about human nature.
Human nature is what we are inclined to do; morals have to do with whether or not we do what we are naturally inclined to do, and whether or not we think it is right to do these things.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 05:21:41 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 04:56:34 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 30, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.
We're just not evolved enough yet.
If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.
Who are we to set the parameters of evolution? Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.
Mmhhm, look at history. Even if you do think that humans evolved from monkeys or some other lesser life form, were the monkeys less selfish then humans are today? If anything we are more selfish, which means that evolution did not make things better.
Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?
If human nature is bad and was not there when humans did not exist, then it is not logical to think that evolution makes things better. In fact, the evidence shows that it will most likely make things worse.
To answer your question straight up, cltrn81: Being a logical and a rational human being who can process thoughts and draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, I am perfectly qualified to set boundries on evolution and what it can and cannot do.
Qualified to set boundaries on evolution and what it can and cannot do? Maybe you could take yourself in the direction that you wanted to buy you would have no control over what choices other people make and where those choices take them? I'm probably taking your statement in the wrong way, but......
Rational thinker or not we cannot set the parameters of evolution given we are not the ones who control it. Evolution is simply the genetic memory of DNA constantly repeating itself, now sometimes an anomaly occurs in this replication process and the anomaly either works out or it does not......the ones that work out is the process of evolution.....we have no control over this natural process. That is my point.
With that said we, as a global society, have created a different type of evolution through technology....but that is a whole nother story.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 05:50:45 PM
Rational thinker or not we cannot set the parameters of evolution given we are not the ones who control it. Evolution is simply the genetic memory of DNA constantly repeating itself, now sometimes an anomaly occurs in this replication process and the anomaly either works out or it does not......the ones that work out is the process of evolution.....we have no control over this natural process. That is my point.
With that said we, as a global society, have created a different type of evolution through technology....but that is a whole nother story.
Thank you, this is pretty much the point I was trying to get across!
You are taking my statement the wrong way; I'm not saying I am "captain evolution" and I can harness my powers over the earth to do what I want. I mean that based on observations and studies, I am qualified just as much as any other educated person to judge as to what evolution can and can't do.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
You are taking my statement the wrong way; I'm not saying I am "captain evolution" and I can harness my powers over the earth to do what I want. I mean that based on observations and studies, I am qualified just as much as any other educated person to judge as to what evolution can and can't do.
Sure we can speculate but we will never have the right information to be accurate. You tout historical examples as your logic for judging evolution but the very definition of evolution involves going beyond the present and turning into something different. I think there is a lot of randomness in regards to evolution and those types of variables can not be predicted very easily.....do you think the first fish to grow legs ever thought he would grow legs? Granted fish do not have cognitive memory or any real thought process. In hindsight it makes sense that fish grew legs, and wings for that matter, but at the time it could not be foreseen since there was no precedent set for anything to inhabit land.....only water based organisms.
In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.
(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win ;))
Oh man! This thread is POPPIN'! I like this kind of intellectual/philosophical discussion. ;D
Should we break off another evolution thread, philosophy thread, etc?
5 pages in under a day. Whew!
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 06:12:51 PM
In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.
(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win ;))
They believe extremophiles were some of the first complex organisms. Pretty much you need that "goldilocks" area that the energy is not to much and not to little. Then you need any form of liquid because liquid slows down molecules enough that they can actually come together and create complex organisms and start "life". You could not do this in a gaseous state since the molecules move to fast to actually come together and combine.
And yes I am the king of vearing off subject.....I guess this thread has just evolved into something else ;)
I feel kinda bad for not participating in this thread. It's been really interesting to read, and I love to see people talking/thinking intelligently on this kind of subject matter and not just saying "no you're wrong, my opinion is the right way to think."
Maybe when my migraine breaks my thoughts will let me think clear enough to contribute to intelligent conversation. Until then, I'll be lurking around the dumber threads :D
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
Oh man! This thread is POPPIN'! I like this kind of intellectual/philosophical discussion. ;D
Should we break off another evolution thread, philosophy thread, etc?
5 pages in under a day. Whew!
All because of a darn iPad.
This is really amusing to read and think about, but unless I have something really intelligent to say, I won't be posting, instead I'll he off with Gorzo XD
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 06:19:21 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 06:12:51 PM
In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.
(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win ;))
They believe extremophiles were some of the first complex organisms. Pretty much you need that "goldilocks" area that the energy is not to much and not to little. Then you need any form of liquid because liquid slows down molecules enough that they can actually come together and create complex organisms and start "life". You could not do this in a gaseous state since the molecules move to fast to actually come together and combine.
And yes I am the king of vearing off subject.....I guess this thread has just evolved into something else ;)
Yeah but that's assuming the neccesary component's for the "goldilocks area" already existed. If you need space, energy, and liquid to make everything start, then you need to have gotten those ingrediants from some place. All things have a cause and effect, so what caused the necesary situation for evolution? Where did the materials come from?
The idea of evolution is like the idea of an earthquake shaking a kitchen. All of the right ingrediants in the cabinets fall out, fly into the oven, and come out as a cake. In fact, evolution is worse because it cannot even explain where the ingrediants came from.
And yes this thread has evolved, which is called micro evolution.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 05:21:41 PM
Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?
I am very willing to admit that we can observe the behavior of the human animal can mark our observations down as "human nature". I can admit that if something changes over time, we can call that evolution. I don't know where the cans of Coke in the vending machine came from, but I am pretty sure that when I put my money in, one will come out and I can drink it and discuss the taste of Cherry Cola without describing the plant that produced it.
When I talk about the evolution of human behavior, it doesn't have to be in any context other than, "We used to to this, now we don't", "African-Americans used to not be allowed to vote in the US now they can." I'd consider that social evolution, wouldn't you?
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.
I have to disagree.
Libratarians are not left or right wing. They are moderate extremists. They believe in extreme order and extreme consequences. (I know many libertarians).
I believe the national socialist movement was very right wing. Almost to the tea party. (a few are running for city council in my area. National socialists that is.)
Hour drive ATM or I would refute some more ;)
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 06:45:03 PM
Hour drive ATM or I would refute some more ;)
Good luck!!
Be safe.
Instead of {Surgical Extraction}, I would like to invite the off-topic Evolution discussion participants to head on over to General Discussion > Evolution.
Let's keep it clean and fun, boys! ;)
I keep hearing about Libertarians (I listen to Penn Jillette's Sunday School), but I don't know much about their stance and platform.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 06:50:38 PM
I keep hearing about Libertarians (I listen to Penn Jillette's Sunday School), but I don't know much about their stance and platform.
If I would classify myself as anything. Like a democrat or republican. I would say I was more libertarian. I believe in the more controlled sanctions, but more open for the government to "move" within their power.
If that makes sense.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 06:52:19 PM
If I would classify myself as anything. Like a democrat or republican. I would say I was more libertarian. I believe in the more controlled sanctions, but more open for the government to "move" within their power.
If that makes sense.
"Move"? ???
Yeah, I don't really know my stance on .politics. yet. I don't read/watch enough of it. My dad listens to rush....nuff said there ;)
But yeah I do understand a little economics so I just root for whoever seems to have a grip on how to handle the economy the best.
To paraphrase Lao-Tsu, the government is like your lungs, if they are working properly you don't notice them.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 07:01:09 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 06:52:19 PM
If I would classify myself as anything. Like a democrat or republican. I would say I was more libertarian. I believe in the more controlled sanctions, but more open for the government to "move" within their power.
If that makes sense.
"Move"? ???
Haha. I don't know another word for it.
My English is lacking, but I'm trying my best.
I like that quote, so true!
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 07:05:09 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 07:01:09 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 06:52:19 PM
If I would classify myself as anything. Like a democrat or republican. I would say I was more libertarian. I believe in the more controlled sanctions, but more open for the government to "move" within their power.
If that makes sense.
"Move"? ???
Haha. I don't know another word for it.
My English is lacking, but I'm trying my best.
Use more than one word. What do you mean the government should move within their power.
Use their power to its fullest extent?
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 07:08:06 PM
Use their power to its fullest extent?
Yes. With less restrictions.
I think that the government should treat power as a recourse, and use it efficiently (use the smallest amount possible to do the greatest good).
Leberitarian=fast immediate change outside the status quo. Our founding fathers, in the USA, were libertarians since their intention was to liberate us from the British Monarchy and become a self governing state.
Progressive=gradual change that does not necessarily disrupt the status quo, but, is not afraid to adopt new policies that suit the needs of the ever changing society we find ourselves in......evolutionary really ;)
Conservative=do not disrupt or even question the status quo, things are fine the way they are and do not suggest otherwise.
Many people in my community believe its time for a new governmental body
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Many people in my community believe its time for a new governmental body
Like what?
You expect people to be able to articulate that? It's hard to get them to figure out what religon they believe in. Somebody I know thinks of herself as a Buddhist Jewish Christian
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.
Far right/fascism=government ran by business
Far left/socialism=business ran by government
Hitler's National Socialist Party is really both of these mashed together IMO. I know he studied Marxist Socialism when he wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle) in prison. But he was not strictly a Marxist socialist by any means. His totalitarian empire practiced both facist and socialist aspects.......really the worst of both.
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 07:10:51 PM
I think that the government should treat power as a recourse, and use it efficiently (use the smallest amount possible to do the greatest good).
Sorry to go back
But the problem with this is who decides the greatest good.
If I'm rich I I don't want free health care I pay for it so you should too
If I'm poor I want free healthcare
It's such a fine line to decide who is the greatest good it's all perspective
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
I think barriers like religon and culture are being lowered. Frankly I doubt any countries in the middle east to remain unscathed
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the place has been wrought with war since the beginning of history.
As one of faith I think government can be ran more effectively WITHOUT the influence of religion.
Quote from: Leviathan on May 31, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the place has been wrought with war since the beginning of history.
As one of faith I think government can be ran more effectively WITHOUT the influence of religion.
I've been to Iraq. As the first civilization in the history of the WORLD they still live in the stone age. They live in mud huts with barely any electricity or running water. They trash everything around them.
Would you like to know why?
Their religion. The government won't do anything about it because their religion doesn't allow it. It has nothing to do with war. It's their religion that influence the government which in turn influences the people. Making them incredibly lazy and unwilling to do things we consider civilized.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:55:52 PM
Quote from: Leviathan on May 31, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the place has been wrought with war since the beginning of history.
As one of faith I think government can be ran more effectively WITHOUT the influence of religion.
I've been to Iraq. As the first civilization in the history of the WORLD they still live in the stone age. They live in mud huts with barely any electricity or running water. They trash everything around them.
Would you like to know why?
Their religion. The government won't do anything about it because their religion doesn't allow it. It has nothing to do with war. It's their religion that influence the government which in turn influences the people. Making them incredibly lazy and unwilling to do things we consider civilized.
Well religion is kind of to blame since Iraq was actually part of the original paradise, aka the Garden of Eden, and god pretty much made it a {wasteland} after the whole Adam/Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. That land has maintained being a desolate {wasteland} ever since then.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 09:05:50 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:55:52 PM
Quote from: Leviathan on May 31, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the place has been wrought with war since the beginning of history.
As one of faith I think government can be ran more effectively WITHOUT the influence of religion.
I've been to Iraq. As the first civilization in the history of the WORLD they still live in the stone age. They live in mud huts with barely any electricity or running water. They trash everything around them.
Would you like to know why?
Their religion. The government won't do anything about it because their religion doesn't allow it. It has nothing to do with war. It's their religion that influence the government which in turn influences the people. Making them incredibly lazy and unwilling to do things we consider civilized.
Well religion is kind of to blame since Iraq was actually part of the original paradise, aka the Garden of Eden, and god pretty much made it a {wasteland} after the whole Adam/Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. That land has maintained being a desolate {wasteland} ever since then.
But that's purely theoretical.
Quote from: Rass on May 31, 2012, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 07:10:51 PM
I think that the government should treat power as a recourse, and use it efficiently (use the smallest amount possible to do the greatest good).
Sorry to go back
But the problem with this is who decides the greatest good.
If I'm rich I I don't want free health care I pay for it so you should too
If I'm poor I want free healthcare
It's such a fine line to decide who is the greatest good it's all perspective
The thing is that America is the only advanced civilization without a universal healthcare system. The problem is that the American political system allows too much money in .politics. and the main industries that lobby and provide campaign contributions want anything but a universal healthcare system. They will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain the system in place and they are always looking for ways to continue the explotation of our country, it's middle class workforce, and the resources, and people, worldwide for that matter. When has America ever NOT been in a war or conflict? I am no conspiracy theorist, in fact I am a patriot who served this country for 9 years, but the truth is that America is a war driven economy. Look at the last presidency for example....President Bush chose Dick Cheney for VP, former CEO of Halliburton the biggest defense contractor in the world. Now what happens to the biggest defense contractor when America all of a sudden goes to 2 big wars simultaneously? I will tell you.....I leave my family and go to Iraq for one....for two, Halliburton gets an almost unlimited supply of revenue all the while paying the employees crap. Halliburton and their subsidy companies like KBR were all I seen in Iraq.......its called a privatized war.... and they did everything from cook our food, to drive the supply convoys, to clean the base facilities, to supply the fuel for all the vehicles, and on and on. Now Halliburton does bring American employees over there and they may make around $80,000 a year or so but the majority of the "Halliburton" work force is third country nationals from the Philipines, India, or whereever and they get paid maybe a little over the average wage of their country which of course is peanuts compared to $80,000 a year. I am pretty sure the US government pays Halliburton around $350 a day for any employee in a conflict zone.....but that is only my guess from what information I gathered in country. The other thing about the third country national employees is that the American military has to provide security chaperone for these "employees".....so not only is our country paying Halliburton big money for them to turn around and pay the employee next to nothing but the country then has to pay for extra soldiers to provide security for these individuals because they are not exactly trustworthy.
[rant=over]
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 09:10:42 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 09:05:50 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:55:52 PM
Quote from: Leviathan on May 31, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the place has been wrought with war since the beginning of history.
As one of faith I think government can be ran more effectively WITHOUT the influence of religion.
I've been to Iraq. As the first civilization in the history of the WORLD they still live in the stone age. They live in mud huts with barely any electricity or running water. They trash everything around them.
Would you like to know why?
Their religion. The government won't do anything about it because their religion doesn't allow it. It has nothing to do with war. It's their religion that influence the government which in turn influences the people. Making them incredibly lazy and unwilling to do things we consider civilized.
Well religion is kind of to blame since Iraq was actually part of the original paradise, aka the Garden of Eden, and god pretty much made it a {wasteland} after the whole Adam/Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. That land has maintained being a desolate {wasteland} ever since then.
But that's purely theoretical.
I am just pointing out the fact that the bible states this and the truth is that place really has not prospered ever since....
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 31, 2012, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on May 31, 2012, 07:10:51 PM
I think that the government should treat power as a recourse, and use it efficiently (use the smallest amount possible to do the greatest good).
Sorry to go back
But the problem with this is who decides the greatest good.
If I'm rich I I don't want free health care I pay for it so you should too
If I'm poor I want free healthcare
It's such a fine line to decide who is the greatest good it's all perspective
The thing is that America is the only advanced civilization without a universal healthcare system. The problem is that the American political system allows too much money in .politics. and the main industries that lobby and provide campaign contributions want anything but a universal healthcare system. They will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain the system in place and they are always looking for ways to continue the explotation of our country, it's middle class workforce, and the resources, and people, worldwide for that matter. When has America ever NOT been in a war or conflict? I am no conspiracy theorist, in fact I am a patriot who served this country for 9 years, but the truth is that America is a war driven economy. Look at the last presidency for example....President Bush chose Dick Cheney for VP, former CEO of Halliburton the biggest defense contractor in the world. Now what happens to the biggest defense contractor when America all of a sudden goes to 2 big wars simultaneously? I will tell you.....I leave my family and go to Iraq for one....for two, Halliburton gets an almost unlimited supply of revenue all the while paying the employees crap. Halliburton and their subsidy companies like KBR were all I seen in Iraq.......its called a privatized war.... and they did everything from cook our food, to drive the supply convoys, to clean the base facilities, to supply the fuel for all the vehicles, and on and on. Now Halliburton does bring American employees over there and they may make around $80,000 a year or so but the majority of the "Halliburton" work force is third country nationals from the Philipines, India, or whereever and they get paid maybe a little over the average wage of their country which of course is peanuts compared to $80,000 a year. I am pretty sure the US government pays Halliburton around $350 a day for any employee in a conflict zone.....but that is only my guess from what information I gathered in country. The other thing about the third country national employees is that the American military has to provide security chaperone for these "employees".....so not only is our country paying Halliburton big money for them to turn around and pay the employee next to nothing but the country then has to pay for extra soldiers to provide security for these individuals because they are not exactly trustworthy.
[rant=over]
I was using healthcare as an example. I was just trying to compare the better good. Who gets to decide it. Everyone here has their own idea of it.
Quote (or as close as I can get to it) from Teller of Penn and Teller:
WRT US -
"We're spending money we don't have to kill people we don't know for reasons we don't understand."
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 09:59:31 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Milo109 on May 31, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sagemaster on May 31, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
I don't think we'd want a gov based on religious ties...
So many of them are. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just sayin'.
Israel
Pretty much any middle eastern country.
And the US.
The United States isn't based on religious ties as much as it is having religious viewpoints to get elected.
The difference?
Quote from: loop-s-pool on May 31, 2012, 10:06:25 PM
The United States isn't based on religious ties as much as it is having religious viewpoints to get elected.
That's part of the 3 g's
God
Guns
Gays
Well I don't vote. So it matters little to me.
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
Well I don't vote. So it matters little to me.
Do you choose not to or are you not allowed
Quote from: Rass on May 31, 2012, 10:25:42 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
Well I don't vote. So it matters little to me.
I just became a citizen last year. So I haven't had a chance.
Do you choose not to or are you not allowed
May I just say, it's been 8 pages of talk on .politics. and so far it has been respectful and intelligent. I'm very proud of our members. 😌
I need to start trollin
Jkjk
This is what I was looking for. I enjoy other peoples perspective. And it's hard for me to talk to other people around the world who also share a common interest.
Woman's rights to choose what she does to her own body, which can in turn infringe on an unborn female fetus whom has no rights and can't choose, yet is still technically a woman. There's a paradox of recent news! Not pro life or pro choice myself, just find the argument intriguing of when life legally starts. IMO , I never understood why a father ( if known and not AWOL) has no legal (or socially accepted) voice for advocacy of a [life] made also from his own self, because as I understand a man has to consent to give up rights to possible future children when [selling] his "product" to a sperm bank, so would that make the act of pregnancy an unwritten binding implied contract that sex is only meant for procreation purposes and therefore only the woman has the right to her "own body"?
Just curious on other thoughts on this per recent u.s. decision on gender based abortions today. I am also greatful that this thread is here, allowed, and has been very graceful and open minded.
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 10:07:09 PM
The difference?
The US is not a theocracy in one, but a ticket to office.
To think, theres more trolling about RDW than about .politics.. 😜
Quote from: Jbombard51 on May 31, 2012, 10:49:41 PM
Woman's rights to choose what she does to her own body, which can in turn infringe on an unborn female fetus whom has no rights and can't choose, yet is still technically a woman. There's a paradox of recent news! Not pro life or pro choice myself, just find the argument intriguing of when life legally starts. IMO , I never understood why a father ( if known and not AWOL) has no legal (or socially accepted) voice for advocacy of a [life] made also from his own self, because as I understand a man has to consent to give up rights to possible future children when [selling] his "product" to a sperm bank, so would that make the act of pregnancy an unwritten binding implied contract that sex is only meant for procreation purposes and therefore only the woman has the right to her "own body"?
Just curious on other thoughts on this per recent u.s. decision on gender based abortions today. I am also greatful that this thread is here, allowed, and has been very graceful and open minded.
Recommend a new topic for this
And then the abortion topic came up.
Let's all take a deep breath now...
I too am fascinated by the topic of "When does life begin?"
Goto Life.
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 31, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: cltrn81 on May 31, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: Kuberr on May 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.
You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.
My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.
His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.
Far right/fascism=government ran by business
Far left/socialism=business ran by government
Hitler's National Socialist Party is really both of these mashed together IMO. I know he studied Marxist Socialism when he wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle) in prison. But he was not strictly a Marxist socialist by any means. His totalitarian empire practiced both facist and socialist aspects.......really the worst of both.
In Hitler's socialist Germany the business was not running the country but were told what to do. Nazis come short of nationalising them but the difference was minute, they left the 'private' labels in but really the big business was run by the state. Far right = libertarian = just a little short of no government at all (anarchy). What is being described as far right by most of the people these days is fascism or national socialism, which are both systems where state has all the power and the individuals (or businesses at that) can do nothing as the state tells them what to do and how to live. Hence they are often named totalitarian, as the state extorts total control over people. This has nothing to do with far right.
Think about it this way, the more freedom the individual has and the less power the government, the more right wing the system is. Hence libertarian system is on the far right, totalitarian systems such as national socialism, fascism and communism are on the far left. It's as simple as that, actually.
Quote from: Piotr on June 01, 2012, 04:11:36 AM
Think about it this way, the more freedom the individual has and the less power the government, the more right wing the system is. Hence libertarian system is on the far right, totalitarian systems such as national socialism, fascism and communism are on the far left. It's as simple as that, actually.
Well put, well put.
By-the-by, where on this definition of left and right would you put this forum? I personally want to give members as much freedom as possible, falling just shy to respect other members.
I'd not label it as either, but more of an open forum where we can share our ideals and perspectives. If it were to be labeled, then minded people of one side or the other may be inclined to not input making it either MSNBC or Fox News lol.
I disagree, left wing is more aligned with the people, unions, and the labor movement. Fascism is against unions to the point that strikes under a fascist state are a crime. Fascism really is hard to define as left wing or right wing since they are all across the board with their policies.
Also, to call liberitarian only far right is a fallacy as well since the very definition of liberalism involves sudden change......the far right are ultra conservatives who do not want change.
With that said there is a distinction between left and right libertarians. A left libertarian supports social changes that benefit the people. A right libertarian supports big business changes that give rich people more tax breaks.
Quote
With that said there is a distinction between left and right libertarians. A left libertarian supports social changes that benefit the people. A right libertarian supports big business changes that give rich people more tax breaks.
If you're implying left libs only care about social changes to help people then that is false. Offering programs that COULD help people would be more accurate - since you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink (although after awhile it sure gets thirsty). Point being in one example; look at when the Governator passed a bill allowing EBT recipients to use their cards at ATM machines in California -- how many millions got used inappropriately in casinos, strip clubs and the etc? "helping" people also means not enabling bad behavior; the old teach a man to fish saying and all.
Quote from: Jbombard51 on June 01, 2012, 12:33:18 PM
Quote
With that said there is a distinction between left and right libertarians. A left libertarian supports social changes that benefit the people. A right libertarian supports big business changes that give rich people more tax breaks.
If you're implying left libs only care about social changes to help people then that is false. Offering programs that COULD help people would be more accurate - since you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink (although after awhile it sure gets thirsty). Point being in one example; look at when the Governator passed a bill allowing EBT recipients to use their cards at ATM machines in California -- how many millions got used inappropriately in casinos, strip clubs and the etc? "helping" people also means not enabling bad behavior; the old teach a man to fish saying and all.
Obviously I cannot define each entity in entirety.....I was speaking rather broad just to point out there are liberals on complete opposite sides of the spectrum.....therefore one could not simply say a libertarian is specifically left or right.
Quote from: loop-s-pool on May 31, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: BlackJester on May 31, 2012, 10:07:09 PM
The difference?
The US is not a theocracy in one, but a ticket to office.
It's close enough...remember all the upheaval with Obama's middle name? "Oh he's a Muslim he must be impeached!" Etc.
Quote from: Jbombard51 on June 01, 2012, 11:54:43 AM
I'd not label it as either, but more of an open forum where we can share our ideals and perspectives. If it were to be labeled, then minded people of one side or the other may be inclined to not input making it either MSNBC or Fox News lol.
We mod's have to decide how much freedom members can have on the forum before we intervene with punishment (banning, censoring, etc). Like it or not, we here have a small/narrow form of government.
I'd like to give you all as much freedom to do and say what you all feel. But I also want to protect other members from attack or obscenity.
Well one good rule to follow is that hate speech isn't free speech. That's pretty much my personal rule -- whenever someone is speaking down on me or is obviously rageful ( passive or aggressive) I know to just hit the ignore button in my mind ;) the only things that aggravate me are the IRS, people whom abuse the defenseless , attacks on my family, and any reality TV show lol.
Quote from: cltrn81 on June 01, 2012, 11:56:52 AM
I disagree, left wing is more aligned with the people, unions, and the labor movement. Fascism is against unions to the point that strikes under a fascist state are a crime. Fascism really is hard to define as left wing or right wing since they are all across the board with their policies.
Also, to call liberitarian only far right is a fallacy as well since the very definition of liberalism involves sudden change......the far right are ultra conservatives who do not want change.
With that said there is a distinction between left and right libertarians. A left libertarian supports social changes that benefit the people. A right libertarian supports big business changes that give rich people more tax breaks.
You seem to be confusing a lot of things. My definition is much simpler and makes perfect sense. Left libertarian is a nice example of an oxymoron, btw. Let's agree to disagree as we seem unable to agree on the dictionary, and I'm not gonna budge as I've studied .politics. for the last 20 years or so.
Quote from: BlackJester on June 01, 2012, 11:26:53 AM
Quote from: Piotr on June 01, 2012, 04:11:36 AM
Think about it this way, the more freedom the individual has and the less power the government, the more right wing the system is. Hence libertarian system is on the far right, totalitarian systems such as national socialism, fascism and communism are on the far left. It's as simple as that, actually.
Well put, well put.
By-the-by, where on this definition of left and right would you put this forum? I personally want to give members as much freedom as possible, falling just shy to respect other members.
I'm with you ;)