101 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

Hey thanks and that's quite a lot. I'm a little burned out commenting today but I hear you and I'll probably get back to ya later.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Should read : If you filled up a sheet of paper with x's for every person, you would have 3 Empire state building sized stacks of paper filled with x's representing people that live on less than $2 a day so we can keep our lifestyles.

[Imaginarynumber1]

-Mr_Fess-, on 12 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Hey thanks and that's quite a lot. I'm a little burned out commenting today but I hear you and I'll probably get back to ya later.

No problem. I'm about done here today myself, what with the massive posting most of the day in that awful ancient aliens thread...

Just putting my perspective (and a little liberal guilt ) out there.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 12 December 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[F3SS]

Imaginarynumber1, on 12 December 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

No problem. Just putting my perspective (and a little liberal guilt ) out there.

That's alright. You know I don't fall for it.

[RavenHawk]

Imaginarynumber1, on 11 December 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

No, I just don't like you.

The feeling is mutual but unlike you, I don’t thrive on the hatred.

Quote

You talk about politics like the world is going to end if you don't get your way

And that is purely your interpretation.  Like not shutting up long enough to understand what I am saying.  Even in your next post you admit as much.  But that is your education.  You don’t know how to use it.  You’re too emotional and for whatever reason this pushes your buttons because I threaten your comfort zone.  I call out Socialism for what it is and that just insults your sensibilities.  Too bad, get use to disappointment (you should recognize that quote).

Quote

and don't even know what socialism is.

And I know what Socialism is.  I just don’t care to play the definition game.  That is very dishonest.  All I did was made clear the usage.  Because people do, just throw that term out.  I merely established why that term is used.  Hence the title…  You obviously can’t deal with that.

Quote

You've made up your own definition,

I didn’t just make up the term.  I clarified the difference between an academic definition and practical usage.  I marginalize your defense of hiding behind abiding by precise definitions.  That I think is what drives your ilk crazy.  I don’t allow you to fall back on that.  You have to confront what Socialism really is and not some euphemism.  You can’t point to something like Totalitarianism and say “see, that is worse”.  For all practical purposes, that’s *POT* *KETTLE* *BLACK*.

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say I did “just make that term up”.  That still doesn’t change the substance of this thread.  The fact is, is that you seem to love Socialism and I spit on it, with enthusiasm.  I am naturally abhorred by it.  You see, I haven’t lost my individual liberty yet, so I write this with passion.  You’ve lost your liberty and all I see from you is hatred of which you admit by implying that I am your enemy.  So be it.

Quote

then declare that everybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong and ignorant.

That’s not the case.  I just saw people calling me ignorant because I didn’t agree with their world view.  I never saw anyone saying: “oh I see what you are talking about”.  All you did was attack me and try to ridicule me.  Here’s a clue, that doesn’t work on me.  It just makes me defiant and causes me to get in your face!  This was not a matter of me being right or wrong but do you understand or not.  I got that answered very clearly.  I’m trying to share a concept here and it seems to threaten you.  That is very interesting.

Quote

People like you are the reason that America is doing so poorly right now. People like you divide this country by insisting that only your way is correct and you refuse to give an inch for the greater good. If and when this nation falls, it will be due to people like you.

And now for the “out of left field” department… People like me?  A fiscal conservative is the reason this nation is doing poorly?  You are quaffing the koolaid aren’t you – completely brainwashed.  I think you should look in the mirror first.  Socialism is what is wrong in the world today.  There is evidence everywhere one looks.  Obama is the one dividing the country.  Do you see him trying to mend fences?  Absolutely not.  Why?  Because of his Socialist agenda.  The one that you seem to follow hook, line, and sinker.  It’s his way or the highway and you are an acolyte.

Quote

I have nothing more to say to you.

Good, then you know where the door is.  This is not a Socialist board; you can turn away anytime you want.  You shouldn’t need someone to tell you that the content of this thread is not for you.

[RavenHawk]

Imaginarynumber1, on 12 December 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

In all honestly, after the election my desire to talk politics has vastly waned.

In all honesty, my activism has stepped up since the election.  No, the world is not coming to an end but we are in perilous times now.  Liberty is being threatened.  And all true patriots must step up.

Quote

No thanks, in part, to this semester coming to an end and the mad scramble to finish research papers and prepare for finals.

But we're not enemies. I understand your view, I really do.

- Ah, college student?!

- But we’re enemies??  OK, noted.  You won’t ever try to understand my view.  Actually, I think you do but you willfully remain blind to it because it goes against your Socialist worldview which you hold sacred.

Quote

I have several good friends (I have friends.. i swear.) that share your view and we have discussed it at length.

That sounds patronizing.  Token Capitalists??

Quote

Due to my education, however, I view things through a different lens.

Indoctrination usually does that.

Quote

Most of my recent time has been spent with anthropology and looking at these other cultures and how they have/are failing or succeeding makes one see that our formalist economic methods across the global are not in anyone's best interests except a select few. We have far exceed the carrying capacity of our lands and have ruined others across the globe in the process.

Of course.  And that’s what someone probably said ages ago about that time and what someone said ages before that.  You have to blame someone or something so blame what it is that you fear so you can remain a slave.  Our “formalist economic methods” across the globe divide those that can act in their own best interests and those that can’t.  These “methods” aren’t what ruins the lands or individuals.  It’s those that can’t act in their own best interests.  We’re all capable of doing it but many don’t.

Quote

The most successful societies, it may pain you to hear, are essentially socialist.

That’s sort of disingenuous.  Since Socialism has been the most common form of government in history and today, there will of course be successes.  Man couldn’t have gotten as far as he did without it, but since the Age of Enlightenment, Man has gone beyond the nanny state.  Individual liberty is now an active part of Man’s consciousness.  No longer does he need to pledge his loyalty to a king.  Man has taken the bite out of the apple and he can’t go back.  There is no Socialist utopia with liberty for all, far all are enslaved under Socialism.

But what is successful isn’t always sustainable.  How many true Kingdoms exist today that haven’t been overthrown or had revolutions?  Monarchies gave way to Socialist Democracies, but they don’t last long.  Europe is always going through government changes.  The American Revolution was indicative of the need of Man to move beyond Socialism.  Governments are no longer needed to provide and look after the people (or enslave them).  The people can do for themselves.  Governments should only run the country and not the people.

Quote

They are as close to egalitarian as you can get. The share and redistribute their wealth(usually food) and humans lived this way for over 90% of their existence as hunter/gatherer societies.

Right, as egalitarian as you can get.  That’s the issue isn’t it?  Just redistribute the wealth.  Tell those that show initiative and talent that their liberty means nothing and that their wealth will be confiscated.  You have to admit that some people are not as talented as others, right?  Therefore, they cannot command the same wealth.  Some work harder than others, right?  With me so far?  Humans are not egalitarian creatures.  Because of that, you end up punishing those that work hard.  That is a plan for stagnation.  To truly be egalitarian would mean that all are equally poor.  Just remove all initiative.

I guess you think that we should all just return to an agrarian – hunter/gatherer type environment.  Sit around the camp fire and sing kumbaya, while fearing what lurks beyond the light of the fire.  Wait a minute, aren’t we in the Age of Enlightenment?  So we don’t need this kind of society any more.  We have evolved.  We are aware of our inalienable individual Rights.

Quote

Economics is the only science whose models have been proven time and time again to be faulty, yet they refuse the refine them because it would alter our way of life which while it works for us, is not sustainable.

I never said nor considered Adam Smith as being perfect.  Man is not perfect and because of that, we strive to be better.  You cannot strive in stagnation.  We do refine these models.  Capitalism is constantly being refined because it is the consumer that drives the market and that is what causes refinement.  When the consumer speaks, the market corrects itself.  Having the consumer affect the bottom line gets business’s attention.  On the other hand Socialism doesn’t rely on the consumer.  It depends on the ruling elite.  If what the consumer wants also benefits the ruling elite then corrections will occur.

Quote

1/4 of the worlds nations combined have less money than the 3 richest people in the world. The disparity between rich and poor is rising every day. 3 billion people live on $2 or less a day because of our colonial and now post colonial economics. 3 billion. If you filled up a sheet of paper with x's for every person, you would have 3 Empire state buildings worth of people that live on less than $2 a day so we can keep our lifestyles. And it is NOT sustainable. There is NO trickle down of wealth. There never has been. There never will be.

Another way to look at it is that our poor live better than 80% of the rest of the world.  That is directly a result of our wealthy.  This nation’s accumulated wealth raises all boats.  Many of our poor would be wealthy in some nations and could move to these nations and become its wealthy, which Americans of all economic classes do.  That is trickle down in effect.  Or haven’t you bothered to notice?

We never had “colonial” economics.  Our wealth was all homegrown from the likes of Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc.  Yes, there were abuses and some from the government.  But the system refined itself and we benefited more than not.  Where do you think this country would have been without these men?  We would have never gone to the Moon.  People would still be dying because we didn’t have penicillin.  Etc., etc.

Islam ended up as the recipient of the wealth of Roman and Greek knowledge.  Other than what could be used immediately for the benefit of the Theocracy, that knowledge remained unused until the Renaissance in Europe.  For a brief moment liberty struggled to break free.  But this time, it had to deal with the Church, but it was closer to the surface and lurked there until 1776.

What is unsustainable is wealth redistribution.  What is the main reason that the poor are poor?  It’s not because of circumstance because many of the wealthy began from bad circumstances and they achieved and advanced.  It’s because they are poor money managers and they can’t work themselves out of their circumstance.  Money just isn’t as important to them as it is to someone that can hang on to it.  So if you bestow redistributed wealth on people that can’t manage that wealth, that wealth will disperse, not doing anyone any good and we’re right back where we started.  Wealth redistribution is only a temporary instant gratification.  The wealthy cannot continually support that kind of redistribution.  Is that not correct?  Or have you not thought things that far out?  Wealth is indeed a renewable resource but not when you have more going out than you have coming in.  Gee, that sounds familiar??

Quote

I implore you, if you ever get the chance to travel, look around at what our wealth has cost the rest of the world.

I haven’t travelled a lot but I don’t see anything detrimental that our wealth caused.  Only positive things.  It was our wealth that rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII.

Quote

I'm not rooting for socialism,

but I certainly don't see it as the evil end of the world

- You could have fooled me.

- It’s not the end of the world.  See you don’t understand.  It is the loss of liberty.  For many, that might be the end of the world.

Quote

and I don't see the US anywhere near becoming a socialist country.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.  Socialism has been creeping into our system for over a century now.  There isn’t anyone alive today that really knows what true liberty is.  I have a legacy to uphold.  Yes, I am from immigrants that sought liberty but I am also descendent from our Founding Fathers.  The liberty that they realized surges in my blood.  I don’t have the luxury to relish in their liberty; I must secure it for myself.  ”Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”  I do not wish to be one of those that say, “I remember the day when we had freedom and liberty”.  I don’t want the day to come when I tell people about the liberty and freedom that we once had and how it is in each one of us and then have them shudder as if it was an alien concept.  As it appears to be with you.

Quote

That's nothing but a paranoid fantasy that Glenn Beck cries about.

No, it is reality.  Beck is but a strawman so that you can ignore reality.

Quote

Things need to change. You think it's bad now?

Just wait, it’ll be worse within the next four years.  We’re going to get plenty of change.

Quote

The disparity between rich and poor is just growing and growing and growing. Our current models and methods DO NOT WORK.
/rant

Here’s a secret, the rich will always get richer and there is nothing wrong with that.  If you don’t like that, there is nothing stopping you but your own talent and hard work from joining that group.  The fact is, is that you have wealth envy.  You don’t want to work for it yourself and build something for yourself, you just want someone to nanny you.  Sounds like you are afraid of what life might throw your way.  That’s why you don’t think it works.  It’s a natural part of life that things don’t always work out to your liking.  And because of that, you are willing to sell your liberty for bread and circuses.  If that wasn’t the case then you wouldn’t be saying the things you are.

[Corp]

RavenHawk, on 12 December 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

- But we're enemies??  OK, noted.  You won't ever try to understand my view.  Actually, I think you do but you willfully remain blind to it because it goes against your Socialist worldview which you hold sacred.

Imaginarynumber1, on 12 December 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

But we're not enemies.

He's not the one who's blind.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Corp, on 13 December 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

He's not the one who's blind.

I found that a bit humorous, myself.

I thought my points were quite clear, but I guess facts are now "indoctrination". Exactly what I would expect from her.
I could be wrong, but did I not say something along the lines of "I'm no huge fan of socialism" in my post? These people sometimes...
(I'm replying to you cause I have her on my ignore list.)

[Einsteinium]

I ask you, define what freedom means to you?

Back when the constitution was written, the USA was a very different place. Vast lands ripe for the taking, but first we had to enslave and murder the Native Americans to take it. Slaves were commonplace back in this age. If you were to go back to this age, you would not recognize this country at all. In many ways we are freer today then we were back in the 1700's, but that is debatable and again goes back to how you define freedom.

To the point that Socialism leads to Totalitarianism, I generally agree, however, what leads to a republic? The USA was born out of the furnace of Monarchy - Totalitarianism. Do you think that perhaps in the long run there may be a cyclical side to this? Governments are transient by necessity, ever changing. All governments seem to become more corrupt, and concentrate more power at the top as time passes. The founding fathers knew this, and hence why the constitution is supposed to guarantee our right to overthrow a corrupt government and install a new one, not if, but WHEN the government stops being by the people, for the people. The founding fathers knew that having a 'free' people and a government held accountable to them would not be an easy path to take.

Now back to the definition of freedom. According to the google dictionary freedom is defined as:

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
  
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

Seems to be pretty cut and dry doesn't it? But then again are you really free when you cannot afford to go to the doctor to have surgery that would fix your knee without going into bankruptcy? Back in the 1700's you would be lucky to live to be 50, and you were pretty much on your own when it came to healthcare and injuries sustained out on the frontier. Doctors would not charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for tests and drugs, they would just take a saw and hack your leg off and be done with it (or put leeches all over you, or bleed you out). The healthcare issue is a big one, because having a lack of access to health care because you cannot afford it is a hindrance, a restraint on your freedom. You could argue that. You could argue that socialized medicine actually makes society more free and removes hindrances and restraints that impoverished people have placed upon them. So what does freedom mean to you? Does freedom mean to you that we remove all regulation, and let the economy have a free for all? Sure, it would be free, but only to the people who either have great ability and intelligence, or to the people already well positioned in the upper levels of society. Only those people would surely benefit from it. Is that the freedom you want? Govt. is a necessary evil, regulation is necessary to preserve basic freedoms, but as we enter into a new age of technology that the founding fathers would not have ever even dreamed of, how do we proceed? The founding fathers made the second amendment so that we could all possess guns and defend ourselves against a government that was no longer for the people. What good are guns when the government has nuclear bombs and laser guided missiles? Biological warfare, chemical weapons. The world is a very different place, and it is easy to hide behind the ideology of freedom, but it IS a much more complicated issue than the ideology suggests. Freedom does not mean the same thing to everyone.

We have freedoms now, and people in socialist countries have freedoms that they never dreamed possible back in the 1700's, such as the ability to travel anywhere in the world within a matter of days. The freedom to go to college and choose your own career. In the 1700's this was only really possible for the elite intellectual class. In fact back then they only allowed wealthy landowners to vote. Is that the type of freedom you want? Money is the key to real freedom. If you have millions of dollars, you are pretty much free do to what you wish in this country or any socialist democracy. You can travel around the world, get the best healthcare, worship whatever God you want... That last one was huge to the founding fathers. Socialism? Democracy? Republic? all are great ideologies and all have flaws and become corrupt over time. Apparently, if you look at what some of you are saying, that socialism leads to authoritarianism, well then I submit to you that a Democratic Republic leads to socialism. Because that is what you are saying is happening to us right now.

[Corp]

Imaginarynumber1, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

I found that a bit humorous, myself.

I thought my points were quite clear, but I guess facts are now "indoctrination". Exactly what I would expect from her.
I could be wrong, but did I not say something along the lines of "I'm no huge fan of socialism" in my post? These people sometimes...
(I'm replying to you cause I have her on my ignore list.)

It's odd that you would be indoctrinated since you're American and only Americans know what freedom is, given how the rest of us are mindlessly enslaved.

[Einsteinium]

Imaginarynumber1, on 13 December 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

I found that a bit humorous, myself.

I thought my points were quite clear, but I guess facts are now "indoctrination". Exactly what I would expect from her.
I could be wrong, but did I not say something along the lines of "I'm no huge fan of socialism" in my post? These people sometimes...
(I'm replying to you cause I have her on my ignore list.)

I think it is interesting that some people on the far right proclaim that higher education, universities and colleges, are somehow indoctrinating and brainwashing people to be liberals. In fact, I find it very insulting and no better than people on the far left calling all wealthy people greedy and undeserving  I am sure that some professors who are liberals might put a slant on things they teach, but overall my public university experience has challenged me to think and formulate my own opinions, never asking me to blindly accept any doctrine. Have you ever wondered why the highly educated in this country, the intellectual elites if you will, lean more liberal? Perhaps it is because they see right through some of the arguments of the right that simply are not true? Or is it because they are all a bunch of brainwashed ignorant fools as some on the right would suggest?

[RavenHawk]

Einsteinium, on 13 December 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Now back to the definition of freedom. According to the google dictionary freedom is defined as:

                                        

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
  
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

                        

Great questions.  I wish others would take your cue when delivering a critical comment instead of resorting to ignorance & insults.  I will comment on your posts soon but I thought I’d add to your definitions above.

It is more than having the right to act, etc.  These are inalienable Rights that no man or government can grant another (as well as restrict – but that happens all the time).  We incorrectly perceive it to be “whatever we please”.  Indeed, the difference in meaning is very subtle as it more goes toward a frame of mind rather than an academic definition.

The second point needs to be cleared up a bit.  I would read it as “Absence of subjection to foreign domination OR subjection to domestic despotic government.”  (the last two words being redundant.)  Is that closer to what you were thinking?  Entitlements and welfare is subjection to domestic government.

Acting on our inalienable Rights is having life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Infringement of government threatens this freedom.  A government must remain in its proper place and it should never put itself in the position of taking from the people.  Infringement is a violation of this sacred relationship.  To insure this separation is what the Constitution is all about and it assigns this government five charges.  For over a century, these charges have become blurred.