Whether Letterman knew it or not, though, the kid that he made a joke about was the 14 year old, since she was the one at the baseball game (he was joking about the girl at the baseball game).
as for Obama, I saw his kids on TV ALL THE TIME before he was elected.
2. When the rich have such a higher tax rate, it makes sense that they would get more tax breaks.
3. That doesn't change their small government antics. Both parties have big government motives, but Republicans have proven to be for less government than Democrats.
4. I don't believe in Moral values either, but to say that because a few Republicans did some shitty things automatically the family values thing is all hypocritical is bullshit. They believe in a moral standard. Do i agree with it? no. but pointing to people like Larry Craig doesn't help our argument. Instead, try to understand the other view and refute it with knowledge.
5. I guess this is hard to refute either way. the NAACP to me is the exact opposite of secular for the reasons you actually posted, they support all of these Christian, theocratic laws. But, if they slap the term secular to their movement, it's hard to say that they aren't...
Yeah, from your first paragraph i can tell that you don't watch either O'Reilly or Beck that much.
Mic cutting is done to people who won't stop ranting and won't let Bill speak. It's been done to people like the Black Panther's leader. not someone who's making a legitimate point.
hmm, if i remember correctly i never said anything of that nature.
all i did was state an event and you freak out on me as if I WAS THE LADY WHO WAS THERE.
i never said anyone should get their right to vote taken away or that gay marriage (since i think this is where you got your panties in a bunch) should be banned... all i did was point to an event where a gay man knocked a crucifix out of an old woman's hands and stomp it on the ground. that is EXACTLY what happened. Yeah, she was an old bitch who went to the protest with a crucifix, but that doesn't change what the dude did. I pointed to what he did.
so please, take a chill pill (Prozac). If you focused more on getting high and less on how to get angry, you'll feel a lot better.
there is literally know battle scenes. I liked it because it was interesting, but if you want to see an actual WAR movie, Jarhead ain't a good example.
better movie about the First Gulf War is Three Kings. I never saw all of it, but from what i did see it was pretty amazing.
I think most war movies created are meant to be dark. There are a couple that are more like action movies like Wind Talkers, but even that one created this very dark story line about a guy having to kill his own man.
Apocalypse Now was a good movie as for story line wise, though.
As a movie, it's really good. I loved it. But my dad (a major history buff) gave me the full scope on how it's historically inaccurate. seriously, i think the reason why he doesn't know how to use the internet is because he has all the knowledge it could offer him.
good movie to watch though.
sure, I probably would have done the same (if she brought the cross to me) for no good reason... actually. doesn't change the incident in my OP.
I was just trying to make a point. seriously, pull that stick out of your ass... smoke some pot or something... cause you're a real drag.
1. Thanks for the answer. It's good to figure out why people kill people. Communists kill, pro-lifers kill, everyone kills. maybe, I shouldn't have made this debate because it's idiotic, in the first place, to ask "what's with (insert political ideologue here) doing (something very extreme)". get my point? or do you actually think i'm the alter-ego of Januscomplex (please say no).
2. Yeah, i said liberalism isn't the same as left wing. Conservatives in America would be considered Liberals in Cuba.
3. Refer to the link i've provided about Communism and Left Wing.
4. and, if you keep on searching through wikipedia you'll see that Fascism and Nazism are a combination between Left and Right Wing beliefs.
Well, registering dead people... that's pretty cool i guess.
I mean, when i die i wanna keep on voting.
O... it's only Democratic dead people? Well, I'm an independent so that doesn't work.
and they claim that Glenn Beck is somehow racist because he actually challenged them (God forbid).
actually, what happened was the daughter Todd took to the Baseball game was his 14 year old daughter. So yes, Letterman technically talked about underage rape of a little girl.
Honest mistake? probably. But, I might as well photoshop a large black cock in Dave's mother's mouth and say "lol, see how funny it is?". and, it wouldn't even be the same because his mother's of legal age (if she's even alive).
But yeah, if i were Todd i'd be pretty pissed either way. He was attacking my daughter. but as a bystander, i laugh at their sorrow.
well, it was actually part of your second definition. if you want, you can just eliminate that completely.
there was a gay guy who grabbed a woman's crucifix and stomped it on the ground. in fact, it was on the O'Reilly Factor. But lets ignore this anyway, i see where you're going.
I do personally feel that Tiller's killer was a terrorist. no doubt, i was just refuting your number two definition.
and right wingers don't DENY that it was terrorism, it's just not the first word to come out of their mouth. to criticize them on that is just PC.
although i think comedians should attack the best of the best, your reasoning would also suggest this:
Comedians can attack Obama's daughters just how they can attack Palin's daughter.
I, in fact, do make some pretty sick jokes about the Obama girls as well, but I just want you to know... that is what you are advocating.
This is comedy, there is no line. Now, Letterman isn't funny, I'll give you that, but he did it as a comedian (which is why i feel sorry for him) so technically there is no line.
I mean, Nick Depalo hopes to make fun of Michelle Obama on air soon (he already does it in clubs) and he was saying that this is comedy, there is no line to cross.
Full Metal Jacket. Funny and not full of propaganda bull shit (from either side). It just portrayed what the soldiers felt (like Hamburger Hill).
and it was real realistic too. especially the first half, since R Lee Ermey was a real drill sergeant.
Hamburger Hill was also great.
Flags of our Fathers had the best directing of war scenes along with Letters from Iwo Jima, IMO. Once again, a movie about the soldiers and not just about the War.
Saving Private Ryan was another great one.
Apocalypse Now was kind of slow at some points, but otherwise had a really good storyline.
All in all, it was a fun movie and very realistic as well. Anyone who likes a good war movie has to see Full Metal Jacket.
now for shitty war movies:
We Were Soldiers: too many dramatic entrances and just boring as fuck.
Miracle at Saint Anna: Focused too much on trying to make it like Saving Private Ryan. Just a bunch of closeups of dismemberment and not actual originality in the battle scenes. The movie was all style, no substance. I was disappointed since Spike Lee is usually awesome.
Platoon: Extremely overrated. I fell asleep half way through it. Which was sad because it started off promising, but it just got so repetitive and boring near the end that i wanted to claw my eyes out.
And the movie that i can't wait to see is the Inglorious Basterds. that should be fuckin' awesome.
Just like the gays who knock a crucifix out of someone's hands and stomp them on the ground.
Or the animals rights people who throw paint on someone.
Or the Islamic-fascists who kill military personal.
The Islamic fascists who run planes into buildings.
and under your number two definition, a guy who tells a man who's about to rape his daughter "if you touch her, i'll kill you" is a terrorist.
So really, so many people are terrorists under your definition that it really makes no sense to use the term.
or, we make it more specific. Say that use of violence on INNOCENT people in order to push a movement is terrorism. try to weave out the unnecessary. lucky for you, that includes the abortion doctor. also includes the islamic- fascists.
And who would have known that you would get all PC. I mean, when i hear about someone killing someone else, i automatically think murderer. Yeah, the guy who killed Tiller is a terrorist, but it sort of sounds like over kill. Maybe i'm not PC enough, I guess.
"if you don't call him a terrorist, you're just a right wing hypocrite".
1. i guess you're right, it's just a left wing ideology. Left Wing
2. i've edited it to ask why Communist leaders killed. You know, under the name of Communism. Being pro-life isn't about killing abortion doctors, but a terrorist killing Tiller is considered a result of Pro-Life terrorism. Stalin, Mao and etc. are a result of Communist mass murders.
3. I never said liberalism was Communism... i seriously don't know where people are getting this. Liberal and Conservative are interchangeable in the wings. It depends on the situation and time period. Like I told david, stop taking acid and the hallucinations will stop.
hmm, i don't see anything in the debate description about liberalism or left wingism.... but, left wing can be different.
The Communist revolutionaries were Left Wing revolutionaries.
Liberal is a different term. Liberal can transition between left and right depending on the time and situation.... that is why i never made this connection that you made up.
hint: stop taking acids and the hallucinations will go away.
That may be possible, but, it isn't intentional. Communism hangs political prisoners and burns them at the stakes. So technically, Communism kills more.
Capitalism is against executing political prisoners. In fact, the death of someone can be blamed on many things.
1. both are liars, nuff said. I will rebut some of your stereotypes on Republicans mainly because they're not fair... not because i agree with them.
2. The rich are the ones with the highest taxes. Republicans, first of all, believe in General tax cuts, so that does include the poor and middle class. Second of all, they would prefer flat tax which give an equal tax rate. So all classes are treated equally through taxes.
3. Terry Shaivo is a name. Also, in total they are for smaller government. You can't bring in one event and say "that nullifies any idea of them being small government". They believe in smaller government because they support State's Rights and less spending. Social issues sometimes juxtapose their general ideas, but in general they have stayed true to that. In fact, Terry Shaivo was handled by the state.
4. The only reason why SOME of them can be hypocrites is because they set standards in the first place. The mass majority stay true to family values and are deeply saddened when someone can't keep them. Democrats do not set standards, and therefore can never worry about being called hypocrites. "he cheated on his wife and had sex with a 13 year old boy", "w/e, he's a Democrat, they can do w/e they want".
5. Democrats gave in to not legalizing gay marriage and they highly support the NAACP, an extremely Christian organization that is more Radically religious than the Right Wing. Republicans just tend to say "God Bless America" more often and are not afraid to mention that they're Christian.
1. they are both human beings with all the same parts... so yes, they are the same in the physiological sense. mentally, technically, we're all mentally different.
2. Homosexuality is a feeling. Never said it was a choice.
3. It does exist... just how chubby chasers and foot fetishes exist.
4. Possibly. But that is thought policing. Dog lovers can't marry their dogs and I can't marry my PS3...
5. Diabetics would die... so it's pretty different. Once again, it's a physiological thing. Gays don't die if they don't marry someone. Hell, their limbs don't fall off.
yes, i'm for gay marriage. but when people continue arguments like yours it fucks up the whole debate.
In order to truly bring in the other side, you have to understand the other point of view. Click on a few links that are ANTI-gay marriage... you'll see a lot of things. You'll understand them, and then that's when you can truly attack them. You know... keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
Lulz. That is pretty funny.
I hate it when this happens.
Yes, Lincoln and the Republicans have always been this way on economics, but to lie to the people. Just refer to the original ideals of the Republican Party... don't make up quotes about it.
the whole comparison between God and Santa Claus is really upsetting... I thought we went beyond that.
God can be anything. From an intelligent designer to an unnatural, yet natural bundle of energy in the middle of the Universe. I consider these possibilities mainly because Random chance is not acceptable. But, to believe in random chance is to disbelieve in God. I believe neither, for we are merely at stage one of understanding the Universe.
I should have said "atheists don't need to prove that God doesn't exist". Once again, this is a far greater force than just Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. This is something that, when you ignore what religion has says, actually has some leg.
Agnosticism is surpassing that childish debate on whether one should believe in God or not and is just considering the possibilities. Atheists don't consider intelligent design. Atheists say "of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but the idea is just silly". They dismiss it completely. Agnostics, on the other hand say "Well, considering that the Big Bang had to occur in perfect conditions or else the Universe would never have formed it's not irrational to say that something might have guided it". That is the difference.
Once again, I can not give an answer on whether i believe that a "God" exists. I am not smart enough... sorry.
Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. Actually, just how theists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're theists.
What makes the agnostic different from those two is that they decide not to bother in believing one or the other because they know they're not smart enough to make such a decision. They believe in progressing in knowledge and not making a decision to believe in some kind of theory that has no means of being proven.
God is still a vague and incalculable ideal. Agnostics realize that we are nowhere even near the understanding of the Universe. They say "a type of God is possible, and so is the absence of one". They don't say "Well, there's no true way of finding out, so i just will not believe in him." The appropriate response of an agnostic who is asked "do you believe that a type of God exists" is " I don't know".
is it really fair to say "well, if they're not mature enough they probably won't vote". That seems pretty lazy and irresponsible. Relying on someone else to not hurt you because "eh, i don't think he has the balls".
many 18 y/o are still in high school and experimenting with drugs and still going through their shit hormones. Not to mention that most of them don't watch or read the news.
I'm playing DA, so lets see how far this goes:
1. Lets say we eliminate any other chance of their being a draft. Many already believe that a voluntary military is much more successful than a drafted military, so odds are we won't ever have a draft again... and, we could eliminate the chance of it happening ever again. So, if and when we do that, and the choice to join the military becomes a real choice (which it currently is), why is the government obligated to give 18 y/o voting rights (despite the amendment, lets say we get rid of it)?
2. What if we make it so that only those who join the military receive the right to vote? That would certainly help in taking away the idea that you can die for your country but you can't vote.
Well, I'm just gonna play devil's advocates and try to rebuttal as many points as i can.
So lets start with saying that 18 year olds are not smart enough to decide on who should run this country. It's irresponsible to let these morons decide the country's fate. We have enough doing so as it is.
although I agree with this... it doesn't mean that the debate is over.
Lets say we eliminate the draft... than that means people will be joining the military voluntarily. They are choosing to fight for their country, and this means that technically the Government is not in debt to them. It relies on the choice of the individual.
Really, to me this is a perfect opportunity to test debate skills. I could just do what most other people do and say "yep"... but lets fuck with everyone.
the very worse thing for someone to take when they're depressed is alcohol. All alcohol can do is make someone even more sad and help them finally pull the trigger.
Suicide sucks, especially when its young. I think all we can do is recognize it and try to look for the signs early on in life. When someone is drinking, a lot, that's the first sign that we need to interfere.
Basically, use an experience like this to educate yourself.
So everyone's confused except you? I was just quoting what he said since you said "he's not an agnostic, he's atheist" and I provided how he said that he himself is not atheist and is agnostic.
Disbelief in a personal God doesn't make you atheist... a personal God is a God that watches over you and answers your prayers. People who believe in that are religious. Einstein made some hints about the idea of intelligent design, but never said that it was what he believed in. He always questioned things and was amazed by the laws of the Universe. This is why he refused to become atheist. To reject the idea that there may be an intelligent designer or some kind of superior force of energy seemed contradictory to his beliefs.
My answer to your first questions is the agnostic answer:
I don't know.
It's simple. I don't know if there is an intelligent designer or a superior force of energy. It seems possible, but it also seems possible that it was all random occurrences. But I am clearly not intelligent enough to just decide that there is or isn't a "God".
It's not exactly a middle ground, it's basically the acceptance that we are not capable of answering such a question. We admit to be clueless. That is agnosticism.
Atheism and Theism are bold beliefs. People who are bold enough to decide on whether they believe that God exists or not.
I actually see where you're coming from.
You are referring to a literal sense of Marx's vision. Marx and Engle were not specific on how all of this could actually be possible, and of course relied on something that was impossible.
I was referring more to the vision of Marx along with the actual make up of Communism. What Marx saw, and what actually happened. Under Communist rule, most of what Marx and Engle wanted happened. The only problem was that it would never last once government dissolved, so government stayed in control. The realistic view on Communism was Leninism and Stalinism.
So I see where you're coming from, but just as easily, we can say that Democracy has NEVER happened and that Capitalism has NEVER happened, mainly because they are impossible. We should instead look to the realistic point of view, what actually happened. The Manifesto is interpretable, i remember something about riots, but I guess I could be wrong. But what is true is that those who enacted Communism were not pacifist, were totalitarian, were not Democratic, and did their own version of Nationalism.
as for the up in the air thing, I meant how it was used. Not the ideal itself. Both Communist and Fascist Nations relied on the people working for the government. They just had different names for it.
Well, i guess I have to start by saying: Why the fuck did you post three times?
very unnecessary.
and also, how is a couple a religious tradition? The thing that makes us humans different is the desire for a "soul mate". that person that we feel special with. The one that we want. It's psychology, not religion. Religion was created by human beings, remember. Greek religion taught, actually, that you can fuck as much as you want. In fact, fucking was encouraged. Same with Roman times. But, when it came down to it, the true relationship was between only two people. Not from religious teachings, but by what humans naturally felt.
Yes, there are some people out there who do not feel that they are devoted to only one individual, but that is certainly not the norm and nowhere close. Those are called lifestyles and fetishes. Just how being gay is really just a separate lifestyle that does not represent the norm. Humans, naturally, want a relationship (emotional and physical) with one other individual. Cheaters are not the majority, and even so, cheating is done for physical purposes. Not emotional. The few times it is done for emotion is rare.
It's a lot easier to take things point by point and force the other to go over each point in real life.
the main problem i find hear is that Specific points have to be repeated again and again because people keep on ignoring them. not on purpose, but when you read an argument and then have to rebut it, you sometimes miss a few details.
I try to avoid this by numbering my debates when rebutting. But stuff always gets lost, and as Jessald said, IRL is so much faster.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
quote from Einstein.
Also
Im not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
He says that he is an Agnostic and not an Atheist. Pretty upfront about it as well.
I think the quote you were referring to is the one where he says that other people may call him an atheist. But he was just saying how religious people would probably call him an atheist. I go through the same thing. Religious people all call me an atheist, but i'm not.
I only agree because the Constitution parallels my own beliefs.
It champions Individualism and the power of the people. And it says that Treason is punishable by death, which is a good thing.
And, it's left open for interpretation.
I don't think it's right just because the Founding Fathers are perfect people who came up with a perfect document. It's just perfect for my beliefs.
1. sorry, I was too blunt on the Patriotic statement. I should have known that would have looked bad. I purely meant that they care more for America's needs than other Nation's needs.
2. Of course they care to some extent, they're not sociopaths. But they care a hell of a lot more about American troops than innocent, foreign civilians.
3. My main problem with the Fair Housing Act is that it prosecutes thought. How do you know if someone is actually a racist? Do they actually reject a house from someone and say "it's because he's black". Last I heard, it doesn't work that way. The Fair Housing Act can't be backed up by physical evidence, so it uses Though Prosecution.
4. My concern is of the right of the individual and their property to do with it as they please as long as they are not enforcing themselves or the item onto one another. This includes someone not wanting to sell something to someone just cause he's black.
The whole point of this country was so that the Government could not run our individual lives. If you create a law that forces people to sell to people that go against their own beliefs, no matter how crazy it might be, than we are going against the very principals of America.
After all, the Fair Housing Act is basically accusing others of "thoughcrime". The same with Hate Crimes. They might as well be called "thoughtcrimes".
although i agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God and did not follow and religions and was basically an outright Agnostic, you got the quote wrong.
He said that Science without religions was LAME... not blind. He said religion without science was blind.
IDK if you read it wrong or wrote it wrong, but i just want it to be clear.
in fact, in the quote he was not saying that religion was right. He was just saying that religion becomes a sort of feeling that we create for something. A sense of explanation that goes beyond explaining.
actually, i said provide examples. i never ask people to cite material mainly because it's annoying to find material. In the post that i was criticizing, you didn't provide any examples on why one movement is Extremely Conservative and the other is extremely Liberal. All you said was that they were, and provided no examples.
1. You provided your examples, and i thank you for it.
2. You want me to cite references, but you haven't even done so yourself. all you've said was that I've never read Marx's works. I could easily say the same to you.
3. In Marx's Communist Manifesto, he describes how forcible overthrow will happen when placing in Communist rule. It was all about the labor class creating riots and revolting against the Ruling Class and the Capitalists:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
okay, now for your first question, Marx (from what i remember) doesn't say anything specific about killing all political prisoners. on the other hand, he believes in that people will only be truly Communist once any other idea is gone from their heads. You know, once they no longer think about how it could be: really, this would explain both the political turmoil and the hatred towards Capitalist Democracies.
Mussolini and Communist Revolutionaries. If he hated Pacifism so much, it couldn't be from Marx's and Engle's beliefs in Communism, for people who were fine with physical overthrow and riots surely were not pacifist. So it's only natural to believe that Mussolini was referring to other Communist Revolutionaries.
I never mentioned anything about Garibaldi. Nationalism was a thrown around term. Under Communist rule, you had to coincide with the country's system or else Communism wouldn't work, and under Fascism you had to coincide with the country's system because that was the way of Fascism naturally. Nationalism, supporting your country above all else, was technically a necessity for both rules. It's really a necessity for totalitarianism in general.
The state itself is supposed to not exist after time in Communism. How long it takes, nobody knows. Obviously totalitarianism is a necessity in order to make sure that the path is set, sure. But how long it takes before the idea of state can just disappear, that was left under interpretation.
Thanks for actually providing examples, now for the proper rebuttal:
1. Marx believed that Communism could only be possible from a violent uprising. The idea of pacifism was not an ideal of Marx. He believed that death was the only way to prevent ideological turmoil. Stalin practiced this. Mussolini accidentally pointed to the skewed vision of Communist revolutionaries and not the actual Communist belief.
2. Nationalism is an up in the air idea. Communist believe that the government needs to keep the people protected from everything, while Fascist believe that the people must protect the government from everything. What they didn't know is that both required the same thing. Under Communism, everyone worked for the government in order to make sure that it was strong enough to protect them, and under Fascism everyone worked for the government because it was their duty.
3. The USSR (which is closest to true Communism) was all about expansion. Marx himself saw Capitalism and Democracy around the world as a threat to Communism in one country. The USSR wanted to spread Communism around the world, which it was doing.
4. And on Socialism. Fascism has always been about the "Third Way". They hated Capitalism for its "exploitation" of workers but hated Socialism for its "counter productivity" and insufficient means of progressing technology. So they believed in the "third way", which was a middle ground between Socialism and Capitalism. They ensured private property rights for citizens in order to progress research and technology but enacted strict government regulations in order to make sure that corporations held no power.
Communism: We run everything.
Fascism: We tell you how to run it.
It was right for him to lay a hammer down on that bastard, but I still disagree with some of his views.
I am sort of Nationalist when it comes to Free Trade. I do believe that the government should encourage (not force though) businesses to keep jobs at home and for customers to buy American products, through tariffs and taxes. But, we should still allow the people to choose what they want. Jap cars are obviously better than American cars, and if it weren't for tariffs, they would be cheaper. if that happened, American Autoworkers wouldn't exist and all of our money would go to Japan. We need to do what's right for the country, so we put Tariffs on them. And, I do my own part (i drive a Dodge).
but on everything else, i highly agree. Spending is important, but Britain (as well as America) has gone way beyond the point of acceptable spending.
Libertarians, first off, would be against going into Vietnam. But, Libertarians (being Patriotic and all) would want to have a quick end to the War without pulling out the troops all at once (mainly because that's how you lose more troops). They would support the bombing of Vietnam in order to end the War. As isolationists, they are not worried about innocent civilians, just the livelihood of the troops.
i'm not debating his views with you, actually. you obviously disagree with them, and i agree with most of them. I'm just presenting them as they are (just how you did). what, do you really want an endless debate that will prove nothing? we both realize his views (although, you may be taking them out of context, but because i know this will lead nowhere, i won't bother to do my homework this time).
and, i believe in Private Property, just how the founding fathers did. The only things that can not discriminate are authority (Guns, God and Government). But, if someone doesn't want to sell something to someone because he's a racist, it's his right. Just how I don't want to sell a house to a pedophile (with the whole mental disease theory, he technically has no control over his condition and is therefore a victim). under Fair Housing, we are obligated to sell to him (if not convicted, even better). Michael Jackson, and obvious pedophile but is not convicted, almost became my cousin's neighbor, even though the seller was against it. doesn't matter, fair housing.
So, lets say we make it that it's RACE and SEX and ORIENTATION only. Then, it's pretty easy to say "The person seemed unstable to me and I didn't find it right to sell it to him". A racist can easily say that. So, under fair housing you not feeling right about that guy isn't good enough. So, an obvious pervert or pedophile would still have to be protected under fair housing, or else it would be useless.
This is why he's libertarian about it. This is why many people are libertarian about it.
But you disagree, and i can see why. hell, i used to be that way. But after dissecting this many times (it's all i ever really do in my spare time, dissect ideologies) i've comed to the conclusion that Libertarianism and Individualism fits me best in this situation.
eh, the way me and my friends are with each other, I would probably make fun of them once the news is old.
when it happens, i wouldn't bring it up. but after awhile, i'll probably call them gay or black or something.
that's how good of friends we are ;)
hmm, you seem to have rebutted without providing any examples on how Fascism is different from Communism.
On the other hand, I've presented why it IS pretty much the same as Communism.
this seems to be a patter in your argument. seriously, you pulled what a troll would have done: Fascism isn't Communism cause it's Conservative and Communism is Liberal.
I would ask why, and you would say: Mussolini hated Communism.
The hatred came from private property rights. seriously, that's it... (it would make sense since that was the ONLY difference in the two styles of government).
Fascism allowed private property, but highly regulated EVERYTHING. Communism, on the other hand, had government control over all property. Fascism was more of a liberation movement from Communism. Unfortunately, it consisted of the same Totalitarian style and still had strict regulations over private property.
it does to Socialism what Fascism did to Socialism. It allows Private Property and finds other ways to redistribute wealth.
either way, both Welfare and Socialism have the same goal. Level the playing field. Socialism does it by not letting progression become possible, and Welfare does it by punishing those who progress and rewarding those who don't.
as for the fire man analogy, once again, people may THINK they know why their house is on fire, but usually they're wrong. so no, that still wouldn't happen. i think people are punished more through insurance claims later on. if it's their fault, they are much less likely to get back EVERYTHING through insurance. so there, they are still rightfully punished. and if they have been paying for excellent House Insurance coverage, then they have payed for their full return coverage, thus making it neither punishment nor success.
it works perfectly.
and everything i've ever learned about Socialism, Fascism, Nazism (National Socialism) and Communism has been from history books. I love them a lot ;) in fact, I watch Fox News for the latest News Updates and the occasional lively debates that they have. No way possible that i'm getting any history lessons out of there (except for when they have War Stories, which is pretty awesome to watch). History Channel is also pretty good. Watch out though, you may call it right wing biased because they don't hold back on truth (i've actually heard that argument plenty of times so i've gotten used to no longer citing their shows).
seriously, you really don't understand what i'm saying at all... how sad.
i've explained it about a thousand times. so i'll just make it simple this time:
gays can do EXACTLY as straights can do. straights CAN NOT do what gays CAN NOT do. Blacks back in the day never had something similar to that. Gays, whether they're gay or straight, will be able to do the same thing no matter what. Blacks, on the other hand, depended on their grandfathers, which were different all the time. So no, it's not the same in any way.
so gays are equally protected. nuff said.
and i'm not debating on whether gays should be married or not. i think they should have the right. i am actually debating on whether the supreme court ruling is right or not. it is dangerous, because it shows how the Supreme Court play into popular opinion instead of actually going by what the Constitution says. They try to appeal to both sides and all it does is blow up in their faces.
public work is fine, but it's hardly enough to give everyone money. where does that leave the rest of the homeless? to create their own ways to make jobs.
if you leave the stove on and your house burns down, you did fail. although, since that is indeterminable at the time, firefighters serve a good purpose. most of the time, though, they are paramedics and HASMAT units.
So yes, socialism rewards failure. if you can't get a job or you make a shit wage, you should not be given free shit that is an expense to those who have succeeded in life.
and for the first paragraph, if you understood that, why did you call me an elitist?
Reagan believed in the expansion of science and technology, so he would definitely spend money on new energy. he would also expand the Space and Ocean programs to give better resources to the military.
He would lessen government control over our lives and property, ensuring that taxes were spent on things that would progress the entire country, mainly militarily.
He would take away boundaries on ANWR so that we could get more oil.
Basically, what we would see if Reagan were around today is a stronger Military, cheaper gas and new energy, and major scientific and technological advancements.
From the first few quotes it sounds like he was a libertarian.
on Vietnam - Saying the same thing that Truman would have said.
on Fair Housing - Believed in individual rights, and exactly what Libertarians believe in. You have a right to sell whatever you want to anyone you want.
once again, you're wrong and don't seem to understand what i'm saying.
everyone has different grandfathers so their right to vote is dependent on something that they can not control. but, gays can still marry someone of the opposite sex regardless. they don't need to have a special ability, just be human.
please, stop trying to compare the gay movement to civil rights, I find it offensive and i'm not even black.
as for your first point, i wouldn't find it right (just how i currently don't find the current system right) but i still wouldn't say it's against the constitution because that would be silly.
i guess you didn't read the whole argument... or just still don't understand what i'm saying.
I said it's the BEST WAY, i never said we actually have to. the question is what's the best way and I answered what I feel is the best way. do i believe we should do it? of course not, too many people with pseudo morals from their God would freak out.
I said that socialism has to do with rewarding people for failure. ensuring that people get jobs is great in a perfect world, but how exactly do you do that? Just find jobs out of the blue? really, where do those jobs come from? Actually, the only way to create more jobs is to encourage corporate growth. as they expand their business more jobs are created. Also, cut back on minimum wage. The less corporations have to pay their employees, the more employees they can hire.
And, the military is always an open job. you see, jobs are available, you just have to look for them. hell, street performing is a job. There's a guy in San Fransisco that hides in a bush and scares people and he makes a shit load just off of that.
actually, no. that is in no way the same. You don't really seem to understand what i'm saying.
If gays were treated the same as the blacks were, they would ONLY be allowed to marry gays... The fact is, gays can do THE EXACT SAME THING as straights. that is not separate but equal, that's integration. If blacks were treated the same back then as gays are now, they would be able to marry white people.
so no, marriage is in no way the same as separate but equal. i'll repeat it, gays can do THE EXACT SAME THING as straights.
Equal protection. Lets break this down to actually something really simple:
A gay person can still get married. A straight person can still get married. They are both ONLY allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, they both have equal protection.
I am for gay marriage, but all it is is a new extension of marriage... that's all. It's not upholding the Constitutional rights. The court can rule w/e they want... they're just people.
I didn't say we should, all I said is that it's the best way to solve poverty for a short amount of time.
any jackass could have figured that out (so you can't be a jackass then ;))
anyhow, I don't see how you think i was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My parents worked hard their whole life so that I could barely make it. I work hard myself, and I help my parents.
The poor are responsible for themselves. it's selfish to say that they're not. I am responsible for myself. i don't automatically think that I am entitled to anything. If i want something, I work for it. Unfortunately, the Socialist attitude has been to make people believe that they are entitled to rewards for their failure. Yes, I understand that shit happens, but if we create a state where people don't feel like they are responsible for themselves, we'll eventually fall apart since there are just way too many fuckin' people to take care of.
I was born halfway into poverty. We've always managed to stay out of it because my dad got two jobs while my mother got a job and raised us (the kids). My parents are divorced and I helped and continue to help my mom keep the house while building up my own life.
and how am I elitist? please explain. Elitists believe that the world should be ran by the elites, I believe in Democratic Capitalism, the exact opposite.
Ray Bradbury had a problem with television because he was afraid it would become our new leader. the computer is basically the TV, but since it's so much more interactive, we need and use it even more than we should.
1. we miss out on exercise. we end up not being in shape and are way less healthy. we don't live as long and we become unattractive.
2. Social interactions are considered IMing and MyFace status updates. We no longer no how to interact with random strangers because we only know them as pixels. The outside world becomes scary to us, and we create a shell.
W/e success may be, the fact remains that we are punishing it.
which would you prefer? we only take money from those who were born with it? Maybe you should follow the Carl Marx belief and breach inheritance so something like that is impossible.
show compassion for those who are bullied by an authoritarian government.
who is the government to decide what PEOPLE should do with their own property?
the right thing is to leave them to their own. Not to steal from them just to give to others.
is it really compassionate to spawn a society that is dependent on a small percentage? We should be encouraging individuality. With a mentality like that, we would create stronger people who are able to help themselves.
that is true compassion.
So if an authoritative figure came and just took some of your money from you without your permission... what would you call it?
obviously we would call it theft. But, this is an authoritative figure, and our parents don't steal from us, they punish us.
when the government deprives one of their property, it's natural to view it as stealing. especially when all we're doing is giving it to those who don't have as much.
what we're doing is punishing success and rewarding failure. that is what welfare is. progressive taxing is punishing success, but at least it doesn't reward failure.
Lincoln was obvious in his views. The Republican party, economically, has always been the same.
Coerce interrogation was only done to high valued detainees. you know, the leaders caught running operations.
Water boarding is what got information on the second wave of attacks.
it was all in the documents that Obama released. Yes, he did give away all of our secrets so that terrorists can now teach their men on how to resist our methods (you know, like the fact that the CIA KNEW that the terrorists were taught to give away information once they could no longer take any pain because Allah would grant them that permission... that information is useless to us now because it only worked since the terrorists didn't know that we knew that).
but, the average Joe doesn't mind a terrorists' discomfort if it means the safety of his family. Democrats do not realize this and Republicans do. Yes, I dislike both parties, but the Party that makes me actually feel safe is the Republicans.
well, i guess i should first point out the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization...
anyway:
Gay Marriage
Both parties are against it. Consider this, we are currently ruled by the Democratic Party yet no legislation has been passed to legalize gay marriage.
War
You made the Democrats seem like the moderates and the Republicans seem like the extremists. If you were to present that fairly, you would have said that the Democrats were pacifists who would never fight no matter what.
Abortion
Once again, making the Democrats seem like moderates while the Republicans are the extremists. If you were to present this fairly, you would have said that the Democrats believe in abortion up until the chord is cut.
Evolution
Republicans on the most part aren't concerned about this. There are extremists, of course, but most of them just say "teach it as a theory" and the small 1% of extremists are actually against teaching it at all.
Taxation
Taxing at an equal rate isn't actually taxing them just as much. If you are referring to Flat tax, all that means is "the government takes 10 cents for every dollar you earn". Republicans mostly accept progressive taxing but believe that over 30% for the rich is too much. Especially when that money is just going to be used to pay for the poor.
Imprisonment
Once again taking the extreme ideal. This time, though, creating a false extreme ideal out of nowhere. The Republicans wish to execute murderers and child rapists and many support the three strikes rule (as in, three strikes and you're dead). This would not result in overcrowding of prisons. Most Democrats do not believe in rehab for criminals, either, but are against the death penalty. They are more likely to overcrowd prisons. There are some Liberals who believe that criminals should be rehabilitated and not punished (because they do not understand the levels of antisocial [originally sociopath] behavior). In fact, Behavioral psychologists don't even believe that you could fix a criminal by talking about his past or rationalizing. Antisocials rationalize the idea that "I do it because it's good for me, and fuck everyone else". The only way to make them realize that they shouldn't do these things is to make them feel bad when they do it. The only other way is aversion therapy, and that's illegal nowadays.
I guess back then Europe was extremely socialist so socialism wasn't seen as an extreme. Maybe that's why you're using the term Communism.
But let me explain what Fascist economics were:
Government control of the banks
Government control of health care
Strict wage regulations
Private property rights
Government control over what businesses could do such as:
Worker's rights
Worker's comp
What businesses can and can't sell (where the Communism part comes into play)
They applied the ideal of private property and ability to progress that came from Capitalism and mixed in strict government regulations to ensure that businesses didn't become too powerful and didn't exploit the workers. Also, to make sure that banks and health care wouldn't fail.
yeah, i see where Communism came in, but that was more under the idea of totalitarian rule, not economics. They're economic system was the middle ground between Socialism and Capitalism.
This is according to Gallup polls and basic human wants (psychology).
People feel that they're lives are more important than the comfort of terrorists or criminals. Yes, there's the Humanist liberal ideology and the Christian Right wing ideology that counters those beliefs, but most Americans are not Right Wing Fundamentalists or Left Wing Humanists. They're just average Joes who want to be alive the next day, and they couldn't give two fucks about about the comfort of terrorists.
"Change" was just a catch phrase. There's no real change. What? A little closer to socialism. We've been on that track. It's not change if we move further up the track. Obama is against gay marriage and against the legalization of any narcotics. The places where he could make a true difference he leaves untapped because he's against that true difference. He's just another politician.
you're right. ever since the rise of Fascism and it's belief in the third way (middle ground between socialism and capitalism) it has just been popular.
it's not Hitler's ideal. it's just the basic ideal of Fascism. Hitler should be compared more with Nazism. Fascism is different.
To me, technology is the only way to come up with a better system. When we find means for certain things once though impossible, it'll be a lot easier to create a better system.
I love capitalism because it gives citizens the freedom of choice and is a lot more productive than any other system. The middle ground between socialism and capitalism is becoming popular again. Hasn't been popular since the Rise of Adolf Hitler. I guess History will eventually kick in and people will gain some sense.
Middle America WANTS to be tough on crime and terrorism.
Obama was elected for "change"... which has hardly happened. This always happens, it's not about ideals, it's about the current events. Hoover had the Great Depression. LBJ had Vietnam and his great society. Bush has the Recession and the War.
Well, I do think it's bad that the people can take away my right to bear arms...
but, i do have a problem with the idea that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution. under what exactly? Marriage is a government institution where opposite sex couples are regulated and encouraged to raise a successful family. in modern times we've concluded that a gay couple can also raise a successful family, so all that means is that we should change certain things so that gays stop bitching about made up rights.
if we keep on arguing about dumb shit like "our constitutional rights" all we're doing is making the argument seem more retarded than it really is.
it's not about civil rights, it's about lesbians on their periods and gays with something stuck up their ass. legalize gay marriage and they'll stop their dumb shit. please, i'm so tired of these morons out on the street saying shit that ISN'T TRUE. i hate it when false things are stated. and the media... god damn the media.
What i'm wondering is why Obama, the guy who promised change, is also so against gay marriage. Fuckin' liar.
Republicans can be pretty ignorant, but they're more logical with their ideals.
The problem with Democrats is that they seem to have lost touch with Middle America. They're soft on crime and very soft on terrorism. The whole redistribution of wealth thing is really just a matter of opinion (at least, in my opinion it is). But they're focus on political correctness and humanism really just hurts their credibility. And on liberal issues that are more important they really pussy out on. Think of this, they are doing nothing to legalize gay marriage or at least make mandatory civil union ship in every state that gives the same rights as a married couple. And drugs are still banned on a federal scale. We have a completely Democratic government yet they have done nothing to cross over to these liberal civil rights.
The Republicans are also against gay marriage and drugs, so all it does is cancel out.
in a setting where only one person does it for the rest of his life and no one else ever does, than yes.
but, this is the real world. the fact is, individuals each do their own version of w/e and other people do it as well.
take a look at me. i don't really care what others do, but i conserve energy and use way less plastic bags just because it helps me economically.
corporations benefit the most from going green. they actually get more people to buy their shit by showing how they use less plastic or how their products are more green.
and, supermarkets use way less plastic bags (which save them a shit load) and actually SELL the green bags to the customers.
the individual CEO just got everyone of their customers to help.
There's only one way to solve poverty, eliminate them.
this, of course, can only last so long. Not to mention the moral boundaries. But the reason that poverty exists is because of those in poverty... if you kill them, it will no longer exist (until more idiots are born).
It won't solve poverty, but it is the best deterrent.
actually, the ideal state to live in would be Capitalism with a small amount of Corporatism.
Corporatism as an extreme is the belief that government should focus on keeping big corporations powerful while keeping small businesses weak. obviously a bad system, but with the sense of government making sure that the market is strong is actually good.
Instead of placing socialist laws where government is increasing taxes, regulating businesses, and increasing spending, government should instead focus on how to keep the market strong. This is by helping businesses all together. Just the aspect on "government should only interfere in order to help the market" is not socialist at all, but partly (but not too much of) corporatism.
That is true Capitalism with safe guards.
they're stupid because they are unable to get decent jobs. with a college education, a smart person should be able to make a very good wage, but natural selection forces the stupid people to suck at getting good jobs.
i'm not saying the richer the smarter, but the better lived the smarter.
did you ever think that the person who down voted you is the same guy who up voted me?
1. i don't down vote unless absolutely necessary.
2. i'm surprised i didn't, since that comment was useless in the first place. i just decided not to.
The way you describe socialism makes it seem as if it were impossible. The government has to get involved in order to make that possible. thus, making the government control who gets what.
but otherwise, how does that rebuttal what i said?
Communist Manifesto was a violent overthrow by the Working Class. and every Communist country decided that it must execute or imprison those who do not run well with ideology. so yes, it's militant.
you don't have to agree with me, but don't say it's stupid to say something that's DEBATABLE.
CEO's wages are done fairly because it is not given by a more powerful force than the people (God, Gun or Government). That's actually the only fair way to do things because it leaves it all to the people. Socialism is unfair because the government determines wages.
Well, most progression was based off evil actually (Holocaust and all Wars). But second to that is basic greed. although, stuff like iPods and efficient computers are achieved through greed. Although, true innovations were succeeded through people determining how to kill the enemy (hell, the screw was created during the inquisition).
socialistic country? do you mean social democracies? (which are NOT truly socialist). or do you mean really socialist countries? (like Cuba or the old Soviet Union).
when the working class stop working, everything stops. They have NO money while the business class have their savings and millions of dollars in the bank to keep them alive for quite sometime.
the working class think they're being smart by deciding "fuck it, lets show them how much they need us", but the only people they're hurting are the reasonable working class people who accept their role in society. The reasonable people who want to continue to work but can't receive any service because everyone is on strike.
the business class is hurt, but not nearly as much as the working class. So they're being stupid (as they always are), but when on strike, they're being unreasonable (and more stupid).
old or not, it is true. actually, based on common sense. it only sounds stupid to you because you have your head stuck in a very dark, evil place.
McCarthy... good one. i could just throw out Marx and it will have the same effect. actually, Marx is on point, since it is part of his philosophy. McCarthy just wanted to throw anyone he wanted into jail and decided to call them communist. total fallacy.
CEO's make their money based off of the people, not the government. that's why, despite how "absurd" it may be, it was done fairly.
with less ability to PROGRESS in the work force, the less ability to PROGRESS in technology. people are highly motivated by the ability to make a SHITLOAD of money. with government determining who deserves what, it is unlikely that inventors will make that shit load of money, or your average worker will work his ass off to get that raise. Communism is the militant force to push Socialism onto a country, i wasn't confusing anything.
I like Capitalism more mainly because it's a system where the beneficiaries are determined by the people and not the government. Now, it does create disadvantages in some ways, such as stupid people having shit jobs and shit wages, but that is their problem. Everyone's problems belongs to themselves. No one is burdened by another person's mistakes.
Under Socialism, you are obligated to help those who surely don't deserve what you have. As a CEO, you've sacrificed everything in order to make money. A social life, a family, all your happiness. Everything you loss in order to become some of the richest of the rich. But, the government feels that you are no harder a worker than a construction worker just because he has to carry heavy shit. So, everything you sacrifice means nothing at all. Your wage is redistributed to everyone else, through both government aid and social programs. You are no longer able to shop around for the better buy, the government owns everything now. You must stick to insurance that you find mediocre, doctors that have reputations for wrong side surgery and cars that don't go fast enough or last long enough.
Technology progression will be at an all time low and Goals of improvement will be stricken since you are now in a classless society. Life will become meaningless.
to be honest though, i personally believe that we shouldn't be purely Capitalist, but is sure as fuck is better than pure socialism. I also don't believe in the middle ground such as Fascism or Social Democracy... i like a good lean towards Capitalism.
