Exposing The Terrorism Trap

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

28 Aug 2002, 05:04 PM
sggg

Quote:

Originally posted by Despair
But then again, EVERY goverment have lots of SHADY business going on, and durty secrets to hide.

It's sad but true... but some are a lot better than others. For example, the UK is just about as bad as anyone - including the US. Russia, like you point out, has a lot of dirty laundry. But there are responsible governments and peace-makers in the world too though. Norway has a fine tradition of peace-making. Sweden is egalitarian and neutral. Canada is internationally regarded for it's peacekeeping and humanitarianism. A lot of countries are pretty MOR.. No-one is perfect out there.

I must say that IMO Sweden is pretty close tho'... ;)

Quote:

Same can be said about Russia and Chechnya conflict. Its pretty much much the same terrorist situation, with groups of Chechen gurellas attacking various Russian villages, and other terroris acts. Which lead to a simular military conflict, but unlike US/Afganistan one, lots of lives were lost both militant and civilian. Again, There are few points of view there, where the Russian goverment right to attack Chechnya, or should they left them independant, and continuing breeding terrorist and crime groups, or was it a good deed, which in the end didnt really solve anything?

Yeh, that's a very interesting situation. I am not an expert on that conflict but I have read about Russia really botching things up with how they handled it and contributed to the problem but I am also aware of the nasty deeds of the Chechnyan terrorists. I think that this is basically another one of those situations where there is no "good guys". The common people of that region are the ones who have to suffer because of it. It's really sad. :(
28 Aug 2002, 05:16 PM
xS

KLA is not a terrorist outfit , despair. Russia is occupying their land.
28 Aug 2002, 08:29 PM
James

I'll be reading the whole thing in a second, but this immediately jumped out at me in roughly the third paragraph-

"...of many diverse groups most of whom do not want to see their tax dollars expended and the blood of their sons and daughters spilled in far off places, the names of which they don't even know, and usually cannot even find on the map."

So we don't want to meddle because we're poorly educated? I'll read more in a minute, but it'll take a second to get past that little kink of logic.

James
28 Aug 2002, 10:12 PM
icarusfall

Yes people, isn't NAFTA wonderful? /mind-numbingly extreme sarcasm

Free trade is one of the nails in our coffin...
28 Aug 2002, 11:10 PM
Hero

Since he mentioned Cali...

Actually, tons of money is funneled to our school system every year. Not to mention the revenue from cigarrette tax that goes to education. Not to mention the proceeds the CA Lottery gives to the school districts. Not to mention every school's own personal fundraisers.

And so on and so on.

You say school are leaky. I already know that, grow up in 'ghetto-fied' Norwalk, CA. But even when we ran a fund raiser to get the roofs fixed, which the district said would be used for that, and even when we raised MORE money than needed, nothing was ever fixed. But the district's superattendant and staff somehow recieved pay raises during a budget cut. Not to mention the budget cut ment they were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, but still spending millions upon millions.

If anything is wrong with the school system, it's that money goes down the crapper for the wrong reasons, the admin demands more, rallies ignorant support by pulling on heartstrings and claiming that 'we don't have enough,' and even when the budget is increased, they don't do crap with it. And then repeat the cycle.

Not to mention the retarded idea of social promotion (which left my sister illitterate for many years while still being passed along, all the while demanding help and getting none), of teachers who don't give a rat's ass, and students who feel the same. Not to mention the an individual tends not to care much about their child's education when the 'taxpayer' is fitting the bill, as opposed to one's own personal money being spent.

I'd like to see how this guy rationalizes private schools doing better scholastically (sp) with smaller budgets than most public schools. And I know there are some public schools with tiny budgets, but when so much money is funneled annually, I ask:

Where does all of that go?

edit: oh yeah, this all spurred from seeing this guy rant that we spend more on military than on education. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, building a tank is a bit costlier than buying a book? It\'s not how much money, in dollars, is spent - its to what effect the cash is used.
29 Aug 2002, 01:26 AM
Fe 26

Quote:

Originally posted by Gongos
I am all for a prudent preservation fo our rights, but we should be realistic.

Oh give me break, we wouldn't even have a nation if america's founding fathers thought like that.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said something to the extent that those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither.

The hell with hiding behind being "realistic". It's a simple matter of quality over/or quantity. Do you want to live a good life or a long life, if you had to choose. Will you do everything you can to enjoy your life or will you do everything you can to extend your life to it's longest possible span? Are you a man or a mouse?

In regards to the original letter I would like to ask that none of you to take it to heart. I believe we have all read in history about a similar rant before. If you can't recall it, put Jewish in front of all words relating to big bad companies. The only real difference in this letter and Hitler's speeches used to obtain power is that were Hitler and the Nazis claimed that they had the answer, this letter claims communism is the answer.

Its your basic two truth, a lie. Then what you need to do about it

1. Life sucks
2. America does some bad things in the world.
3. The big companies in the US are thus to blame for it all and must be destroyed.
4. Embrace communism and all your problems will be solved.

Really, just read his last few paragraphs, all of them ask to put things totally in the hands of the public. We all know how wonderfully things went when Russia took things out of the hands of the rich and the ruling class and put it in the hands of the public. We also know how well it went when the Nazis made Germany's jewish upperclass a target.

Nothing is ever going to be fixed in this nation as long as people get caught in smoke screens like this. No one group is to blame in any of this. You're not going to achieve anything by targeting the poor, the rich, the upper class or the lower class. Liberals have ben targeting the rich and blaming them for this nations problems and Conservatives have ben targeting the poor as the problem, accusing them all of immorality and ignorance. Democrats want you to be able to do anything you want at home but enslave you at work. Republicans want you to be able to do anything you want at work but control what you believe and how you think.

The man did make a good point about how past events are being used to further take away this nations basic rights. Id agree with him on that, but communism is not the answer. If you take power away from one group and give it to another someone else will just rise to the top and control it. There will always be someone in all areas of life looking for power and people to control.

Honestly though, I don't know really what to do about it. Life has really gotten so big, so complicated and so dangerous to those who want change I don't know how you would try to change anything and live long.

The original idea from this nations founders of people having militias and overthrowing the government is a joke in today's world. You would be slaughtered and made into a bunch of crazy wakos so unless you have a island as big as Texas with a army as big if not bigger than the US's just forget about that route, its completely futile.

The only thing that might ever work would be if a people from all walks of life pulled together to make some sort of club or group. And within this group have it founded on logic AND quality of life at the same time. Quality just not for it's members but for all mankind (but it would have to start out focusing mainly on the US, first things first). It would also be nice for a change to have a political group that didn't think making laws would fix the world, that actually thought up new ways of dealing with people with out necessarily controlling one or anther group or groups of people. After the group became big it could pull its resources together to pay to campaign for good people.

Of course I have no idea if this would work. In today's world so many things could go wrong inside and outside. Bad people could rise to the top of it, and/or people who are over emotional and only want to further their own beliefs and goals. A worst case scenario would be it mutating into something like the KKK (yes people, the KKK was originally one town's simple little club of men who had similar beliefs, and not even racist beliefs when it was started). And these are just inside factors. The people who start such a thing could be put out business, fired, black mailed and killed by other groups if they feel they are a threat to them. People don?t like having their lives changed if that change might be not to their liking. We can all think of historical examples of how the ruling classes reacted to rises in new ways of thinking and/or groups.
29 Aug 2002, 02:49 AM
Fe 26

Quote:

Originally posted by Gongos

and here is why it is so hard to have a intelligent discussion, because of black or white thinking like that. Guess what, in having a military and police force, you willingly give up certain rights, in exchange for the protection that said individuals give and the promise that hey will be properly monitered.

What on earth are you talking about. The people are not suppose to have to give up rights to the police or the military to get justice. Their job is to protect those rights and to protect people from those who would violating those right. No one is suppose to be above the laws and ideals this nation was founded on, though this may be possible with the surge of socialistic minded people now in the government. The fact that this could happen is just another example of socialism decreasing the over all quality of life for the sake of promoting longevity, for the good of the people. "We have to fuck this group of people over for the good of the people" "we have to fuck you over for the good of the people"

Quote:

Originally posted by Gongos
honestly, fuck the founding fathers, our country exists not because of a bunch of greedy venture capitalists who had a way with words, it exists because the PEOPLE are strong enough to endure. frankiln, jefferson, etc. were at best aping greek cultural styles, it isint like we are THAT different from our contemporary european and japanese neighbors in terms of individual freedoms for not having a piece of paper to fawn over. The bottom line is that we were vulnerable because of thinking like this, because americans would rather enumerate our rights than realistically understand out responsibilities.

Endure? We gain strength through enduring? When did the US achieve something great PURELY through endurance? Are you referring to how the colonies people just endured England's insane policies? How they just dealt with it day to day and they magically went away? Are you talking about how the U.S just endured ww1 or ww2, just sat back and dealt with them until the nasty little war went away?

Yes it is true we are not that different, currently, than our contemporary European and Japanese neighbors in terms of individual freedoms. Which is sad, that the worlds first successful democratic nation is not much better off now than the more socialistic governments of the world.
It is even worse that people now live in a world were rights are negotiable, that the quality of life can be decreased for the sake of extending life, perhaps even to a point were that life is no longer worth extending. Exactly how bad does life have to get before people realize that the lives they gave up things to preserve are no longer worth preserving? And what would you do if your own life was a threat to the "common good" ? What if 10, 20 , maybe if 100's of 1000's of lives were a inconvenience to the "common good", exactly how many people have to die before such a thing is wrong? How long would you endure genocide if it was for the good of a larger group?

Sure man, you endure, let everything change to suit the time. I just hope for everyone's sake that living in this nation doesn't some day become a meaningless waste of life, ironically for its own preservation.
29 Aug 2002, 04:34 AM
sggg

Quote:

Originally posted by IronPlant
In regards to the original letter I would like to ask that none of you to take it to heart. I believe we have all read in history about a similar rant before. If you can't recall it, put Jewish in front of all words relating to big bad companies. The only real difference in this letter and Hitler's speeches used to obtain power is that were Hitler and the Nazis claimed that they had the answer, this letter claims communism is the answer.

You don't seem to have an understanding of socialism, nazism, fascism, racism, or communism. So, I would like to ask anyone who is reading this post to roll their eyes.

First of all, the article is from the International Socialist Review. Hitler was a fascist and a racist. Nazi means "national socialist", but the Nazis were not socialists either.

Being a racist means to judge people based on their ethnicity. To be against a specific policies and against greed and oppression has nothing to do with racism. There is nothing whatsoever in that man's interview which was even remotely racist, so to compare him to Hitler and Jewish people just because you don't share the same political opinions as him just makes you look silly.

Quote:

Its your basic two truth, a lie. Then what you need to do about it

1. Life sucks
2. America does some bad things in the world.
3. The big companies in the US are thus to blame for it all and must be destroyed.
4. Embrace communism and all your problems will be solved.

The only lie is your misrepresentation of that this man said. You just pulled this out of your behind.

What the man did was discuss specific problems, explain them, and offer suggestions on how to change them. If you want to disagree, explain the problem with them, don't lie and misrepresent what he said. Offer your own opinion on the specific problems.

Quote:

Really, just read his last few paragraphs, all of them ask to put things totally in the hands of the public. We all know how wonderfully things went when Russia took things out of the hands of the rich and the ruling class and put it in the hands of the public. We also know how well it went when the Nazis made Germany's jewish upperclass a target.

You don't know much about the world then do you? Not every country has to be just like the Soviet Union, which was more "Stalinist" than "Communist" anyway. I didn't see anything in this article that calls for turning the USA into the USSR, and most modern communists don't consider the USSR really "communist" anyway.

If the US could be more like Canada, Sweden, Norway, or even France or Germany (none of which are communist, FYI) I say they should go for it. Place price controls on things people need and make sure all people have access to things like health care and water. If you want only the rich people tohave those things, then that's where we disagree.

Once again, your Nazi/Jewish comment just makes you look foolish. There is nothing racist about equality. Quite the contrary actually.

Also, your opinion is quite ironic considering the type of racist views and race problems that exist all too often in the USA today. Minorities in the US still don't have equal rights, freedoms, or incomes.

Quote:

Nothing is ever going to be fixed in this nation as long as people get caught in smoke screens like this.

How do you propose fixing things then? What would you fix and how?

Quote:

No one group is to blame in any of this. You're not going to achieve anything by targeting the poor, the rich, the upper class or the lower class. Liberals have ben targeting the rich and blaming them for this nations problems and Conservatives have ben targeting the poor as the problem, accusing them all of immorality and ignorance. Democrats want you to be able to do anything you want at home but enslave you at work. Republicans want you to be able to do anything you want at work but control what you believe and how you think.

Republicans and democrats are all the same thing in the US. There is no difference. They are both sects of the same right wing idealogy. There are no real "liberals" in the US government.

As for the poor and the rich, what democratic socialists believe is that everyone should be OK. There should not be super rich and super poor. The top 5% of people should not have 95% of the wealth, like it is in the USA (I kid you not, that's a real statistic, and I think it/s closer to 1%/98%, I am just being safe). I prefer living in a society where more people are closer to the middle. Where it's OK to be on the poor end, and you won't suffer, and where you can make some money and be a success. I don't care if that means the richest person in the world won't come from my country. Who needs that much. It's ok to tax the rich. They can afford it.

Quote:

If you take power away from one group and give it to another someone else will just rise to the top and control it. There will always be someone in all areas of life looking for power and people to control.

Yeh, like those crazy Swedish dictators! Oooo they give me nightmares! What a horrible place that is.

Quote:

The original idea from this nations founders of people having militias and overthrowing the government is a joke in today's world. You would be slaughtered and made into a bunch of crazy wakos so unless you have a island as big as Texas with a army as big if not bigger than the US's just forget about that route, its completely futile.

But who brought up taking over the US by force? A violent revolution? I am sure some people belive in that but I have not seen any such views in this thread. Basically this man has just talked about democratic ways to reform the system. If he can't speak out about reform without fearing for his life, that just underlines the problem.

Quote:

It would also be nice for a change to have a political group that didn't think making laws would fix the world, that actually thought up new ways of dealing with people with out necessarily controlling one or anther group or groups of people. After the group became big it could pull its resources together to pay to campaign for good people.

So, it's going to fix the world.. without laws. So, what is it going to do? Just ask people nicely to be good to each other?

Laws are not a bad thing. We all deserve to live in a "Just Society".

Quote:

Of course I have no idea if this would work. In today's world so many things could go wrong inside and outside. Bad people could rise to the top of it, and/or people who are over emotional and only want to further their own beliefs and goals.

Yeh, that's why you need laws. To prevent evil people from controling the government. The control over the government and it's laws should be in the hands of the PEOPLE. ALL people. Not just a select few. But everyone.

Quote:

A worst case scenario would be it mutating into something like the KKK (yes people, the KKK was originally one town's simple little club of men who had similar beliefs, and not even racist beliefs when it was started). And these are just inside factors. The people who start such a thing could be put out business, fired, black mailed and killed by other groups if they feel they are a threat to them. People don?t like having their lives changed if that change might be not to their liking. We can all think of historical examples of how the ruling classes reacted to rises in new ways of thinking and/or groups.

You talked an awful lot about the Nazis earlier in your post, and now you are proposing schemes where the KKK can take over your country. I just don't get it.

How about we just get rid of ruling classes completely? Everyone should have the same rights and freedoms.
29 Aug 2002, 05:58 AM
Fe 26

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
You don't seem to have an understanding of socialism, nazism, fascism, racism, or communism. So, I would like to ask anyone who is reading this post to roll their eyes.

First of all, the article is from the International Socialist Review. Hitler was a fascist and a racist. Nazi means "national socialist", but the Nazis were not socialists either.

Being a racist means to judge people based on their ethnicity. To be against a specific policies and against greed and oppression has nothing to do with racism. There is nothing whatsoever in that man's interview which was even remotely racist, so to compare him to Hitler and Jewish people just because you don't share the same political opinions as him just makes you look silly.

The point of that statement was not a declaration that socialism, communism, and fascism and any other ism is the same. I was just commenting that the over all feel of the letter seemed more like a way of convincing people to choose his ideology on the subject with ?arranged? facts. It is a historical truth Hitler did this. The man blames the upper class and business owners of the world for the worlds problems when there is no way that ALL those types of people are to blame nor could they cause ALL the problems. Maybe it was not his intent but he wording eluded to such.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
The only lie is your misrepresentation of that this man said. You just pulled this out of your behind.

What the man did was discuss specific problems, explain them, and offer suggestions on how to change them. If you want to disagree, explain the problem with them, don't lie and misrepresent what he said. Offer your own opinion on the specific problems.

I didn?t lie about what he said, I might over generalized what he said but I did not lie. You can not deni that the over all message is this letter is that big business causes the majority of the worlds problems and he fills that socialist and communist solutions would fix them.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
You don't know much about the world then do you? Not every country has to be just like the Soviet Union, which was more "Stalinist" than "Communist" anyway. I didn't see anything in this article that calls for turning the USA into the USSR, and most modern communists don't consider the USSR really "communist" anyway.

It was communist there for a while, a short while, before Stalin took serious advantage of the situation. Which is a perfect example of how people can take advantage to get power.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
If the US could be more like Canada, Sweden, Norway, or even France or Germany (none of which are communist, FYI) I say they should go for it. Place price controls on things people need and make sure all people have access to things like health care and water. If you want only the rich people tohave those things, then that's where we disagree.

What does this have to do with the quote of what I said? Yeah, like you said they are not communist nor are they a dictator ship like the two governments I was referring to. I?m not sure but aren?t at least half of those nations democrat in some form and not purely socialist? So why did you stick this were you did? Did everyone in the public vote on this (what I was arguing against) or did their representatives vote for those price controls and health care?

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
Once again, your Nazi/Jewish comment just makes you look foolish. There is nothing racist about equality. Quite the contrary actually.

When I used the Nazi/Jewish comments I am referring to the jews being used as national scape goat and being blamed for Germanies problems, like the way in this letter he chooses a entire economic group as the blame for the worlds problems. Im simply connecting the use of scapegoats. Not calling this man a racist.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
Also, your opinion is quite ironic considering the type of racist views and race problems that exist all too often in the USA today. Minorities in the US still don't have equal rights, freedoms, or incomes.

That comment is not relevant to what I said because I wasn?t talking about racism, I was talking about creating scapegaots.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
How do you propose fixing things then? What would you fix and how?

What are you talking about now? What does a comment about you shouldn?t get caught up in political point the finger have to do with fixing problems? Are you trying tell me its ok to just make a bland generalization about everyone in one economic group. Make some laws for all of them just because of one? When was guilty until proven innocent the way of justice? All I said is people should get caught up when politicians make up some overgeneralized group to hate and claim he can do something about them. What?s wrong with that? What?s wrong with people spread hate?

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
Republicans and democrats are all the same thing in the US. There is no difference. They are both sects of the same right wing idealogy. There are no real "liberals" in the US government.

That?s simple your opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
As for the poor and the rich, what democratic socialists believe is that everyone should be OK. There should not be super rich and super poor. The top 5% of people should not have 95% of the wealth, like it is in the USA (I kid you not, that's a real statistic, and I think it/s closer to 1%/98%, I am just being safe). I prefer living in a society where more people are closer to the middle. Where it's OK to be on the poor end, and you won't suffer, and where you can make some money and be a success. I don't care if that means the richest person in the world won't come from my country. Who needs that much. It's ok to tax the rich. They can afford it.

That is your opinion and I have no idea why you think your opinion should be the standard. Stuff like ?I prefer? and ?I don?t care? are your feelings. There is no just way to look at what you are suggesting. How is it fair to take away from a man that which he has earned? To say ?tax the rich because they can afford it? What kind of just country penalizes its best to raze up its mediocre and worse with out their consent? How can you advocate forcefully enslaving the strong, intelligent and gifted to the weak and lazy? Not everyone wealthy are fatcats who are born into it, some of them work hard for it, fight for it, go to school longer than most people for it, and you want to bind these people to those who didn?t care enough to try hard, those who slacked off in school, and those who willingly settled for mediocre?

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
Yeh, like those crazy Swedish dictators! Oooo they give me nightmares! What a horrible place that is.

Maybe it doesn?t ALLWAYS happened, but it has happened enough and caused the world enough pain already that posablity should not be ignored.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
But who brought up taking over the US by force? A violent revolution? I am sure some people belive in that but I have not seen any such views in this thread. Basically this man has just talked about democratic ways to reform the system. If he can't speak out about reform without fearing for his life, that just underlines the problem.

I wasn?t accusing him of such. I had started a new topic when I started to talk about what could be done in this day and age. I added this part because when the original government was formed it was thought that if a government does goes aerie it?s a good idea to over through it. That can be done with force so I was just saying that wasn?t a option with the change in times. In was a statement about the change in times, not a me trying to accuse the writer of wanting to do a military coup.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
So, it's going to fix the world.. without laws. So, what is it going to do? Just ask people nicely to be good to each other?

Laws are not a bad thing. We all deserve to live in a "Just Society".

I didn?t say it would fix the world but a group of people with the mind set of trying to promote quality of life for all and doing so logically couldn?t hurt the world much more than the other two groups. I also didn?t say laws were not necessary. But they also doesn?t fix all problems. Simply restricting people and/or threatening them with negativity does stop a person from being bad. There are all sorts of things that can be done to promote a better mankind other than laws. Better education, giving people things (fun things, not labor projects) to do as a community, helping the people to become more aware are a few, and im sure if people worked at it they could come up with many more. Doesn?t it make more sense to try to reform people before they commit a crime instead of only after when they have done it and are behind bars? They have the same brain before and after the bars.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
Yeh, that's why you need laws. To prevent evil people from controling the government. The control over the government and it's laws should be in the hands of the PEOPLE. ALL people. Not just a select few. But everyone.

You really think a law is going to fix or stop that? Its already against government policy to be a evil president. That?s what the entire thing of impeaching is about. You can tell people that they are going to get whatever negative thing for do something all you want. But if someone wants to do it, they are going to do it. Our full jails around the nation are proof of that.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
You talked an awful lot about the Nazis earlier in your post, and now you are proposing schemes where the KKK can take over your country. I just don't get it.

How tired are you? I never said that. I just said that organizations can mutate over time into things they were not originally meant to be. I used the KKK because they are a real life example of that and well known. They really did have nothing to do originally with racism, when it started it was nothing more than some stupid small men?s club.

Quote:

Originally posted by sggg
How about we just get rid of ruling classes completely? Everyone should have the same rights and freedoms.

Fine, lets do that. Tell me when you figure out how to let everyone on this planet vote on every issue and how keep anyone and everyone from not getting more power and control than someone else. When you figure this out call china so they can finally iron out the creases in Communism, im sure they would like to finally not have to have someone in charge to make sure everyone gets the same stuff.
29 Aug 2002, 09:48 AM
sggg

people need to see - the new enemy

Quote:

Originally posted by IronPlant
The point of that statement was not a declaration that socialism, communism, and fascism and any other ism is the same. I was just commenting that the over all feel of the letter seemed more like a way of convincing people to choose his ideology on the subject with ?arranged? facts. It is a historical truth Hitler did this. The man blames the upper class and business owners of the world for the worlds problems when there is no way that ALL those types of people are to blame nor could they cause ALL the problems. Maybe it was not his intent but he wording eluded to such.

Ok, I understand what you meant better now. But, I'd counter that by saying that he did not "arrange" the facts, but rather he blamed people for the problems he felt they were responsible for, and backed it up with his reasons. I don't think that he blamed the problems on vague notions of "the upper class" or "business owners". I think he was pretty specific - at least as specific as he could be in a short interview - about saying who was to blame for what or why. I can understand that you don't like or agree with his solutions. Many people don't. I just don't think you're being fair in your criticism of the way he made his case.

Quote:

I didn?t lie about what he said, I might over generalized what he said but I did not lie. You can not deni that the over all message is this letter is that big business causes the majority of the worlds problems and he fills that socialist and communist solutions would fix them.

No, but you made it sound like he made no connection between them. Now, maybe you don't agree with him but to say that he didn't make a connection is not correct.

Quote:

It was communist there for a while, a short while, before Stalin took serious advantage of the situation. Which is a perfect example of how people can take advantage to get power.

The problems you were referring to were not problems that took place in the "short while" (during the Russian Revolution). Also, just because Stalin and other members of the Soviet part abused the name of communism, does not mean it's communism's fault. Just like how when the US abuses the name of deomcracy it's not democracy's fault.

Quote:

What does this have to do with the quote of what I said? Yeah, like you said they are not communist nor are they a dictator ship like the two governments I was referring to. I?m not sure but aren?t at least half of those nations democrat in some form and not purely socialist? So why did you stick this were you did? Did everyone in the public vote on this (what I was arguing against) or did their representatives vote for those price controls and health care?

I added that in there because I was trying to show examples of how things which do work well.

Here you are implying something very strange. You make it sound like demcracy and socialist programmes are incompatible. That does not make sense. Of course every country that I cited there is quite democratic. More democratic than the US is, as a matter of fact, because the citizens have more say in their governments because among other things, they have proportian representation (which is to say a parliament where each party gets a say in governing the country based on the % of vote that they receive). Socialism comes in because they have more equitable distrubutions of labour and wealth, more social programs, state ownership of certain industries (to the benefit not detriment of it's citizens), and so on. There are even many political parties out there called "social democrats". These are not alien concepts.

Quote:

When I used the Nazi/Jewish comments I am referring to the jews being used as national scape goat and being blamed for Germanies problems, like the way in this letter he chooses a entire economic group as the blame for the worlds problems. Im simply connecting the use of scapegoats. Not calling this man a racist.

The difference is, blaming someone for societies ills based on their race is 100% irrational. That has nothing in common with criticising certain specific policies and groups for actions they have taken to unjustly accumlate wealth and power, not to mention and surpress other groups. You have a right to disagree with his conclusions, but to compare them to racism simply does not make any sense at all.

Anyway, you think he is making a scapegoat. I think his criticism is valid and based on solid facts. We disagree, that's fine.. but your analogy is unfair.

Quote:

That?s simple your opinion. (re: Democrats and Republicans being of the same sect)

It's also the opinion of my quite patriotic pro-US Political Science teacher in my US university. Political ideology is not simply a matter of left and right. If you had to make a chart of ideologioes you need to use a different kind of chart. Think of it as a chart where the x-axis goes from freedom-to-order and the y-axis goes from outcomes-to-opportunity. The 2 parties in the US 2-party system (one of only two 2-party systems in the world), do not represent all 4 quadrants. Basically, what is referred to as "liberal" in the US, is viewed as quite conservative in many other parts of the world.

Quote:

That is your opinion and I have no idea why you think your opinion should be the standard. Stuff like ?I prefer? and ?I don?t care? are your feelings. There is no just way to look at what you are suggesting. How is it fair to take away from a man that which he has earned? To say ?tax the rich because they can afford it? What kind of just country penalizes its best to raze up its mediocre and worse with out their consent? How can you advocate forcefully enslaving the strong, intelligent and gifted to the weak and lazy? Not everyone wealthy are fatcats who are born into it, some of them work hard for it, fight for it, go to school longer than most people for it, and you want to bind these people to those who didn?t care enough to try hard, those who slacked off in school, and those who willingly settled for mediocre?

Yes, those are my opinions. Just like your beliefs are your opinions. I don't think there was ever any question about that.

As for your questioning of my opinions, I don't mind if you disagree but I don't think you fairly characterised them. The strong do not have to get "enslaved", but systems should be in place so that the weak do not get taken advantage of by the people with the means to do so. What socialism is about is equality and protection for all people no matter what. It's it the opposite of enslavement. It releases people from ecomomic slavery. Everyone gets a chance to succeed. How much they succeed is up to them!! People don't need to be insanely wealthy. But they can still be well off. There are plenty of millionaires in Scandinavia, you know. The difference is just that there are just a lot less billionaires and, of course, homeless people! All people need to eat and need health care and medicine. No matter what. Society as a whole should work together to give these people a chance. IMO it is better to live in a society where the gap between rich and poor is small, and not large. A reasonable gap can still exist, and people still need to work hard to succeed in life, but if they are destitude, the state can help them and help them get back on their feet, instead of letting them rot on the streets. If raising that bar on poverty to levels to where no-one suffers means that the richest of the rich have to pay more in taxes, that's ok with me. They're still going to be the most wealthy.

That is so much better than having more than 95% of the wealth in the hands of less than 5% of the people. The "American Dream" is that every dumbass thinks he is going to be the next Bill Gates, when most of them end up as little more than wage slaves. That is not freedom. That is an illusion of freedom designed to pacify the stupid. Freedom is achieved when all people are free to eat, learn, and succeed.

Quote:

Simply restricting people and/or threatening them with negativity does stop a person from being bad. There are all sorts of things that can be done to promote a better mankind other than laws. Better education, giving people things (fun things, not labor projects) to do as a community, helping the people to become more aware are a few, and im sure if people worked at it they could come up with many more. Doesn?t it make more sense to try to reform people before they commit a crime instead of only after when they have done it and are behind bars? They have the same brain before and after the bars.

Well, I agree 100% about education! There's something positice. That's one of the most important things that can be done.

But once again, it's also your downfall. All people should have access to education and should be able to receive an equal high quality education. This is not the case in the US. Compare the cost of universities in the US and, well, anywhere else. The realistic opportunity for quality education is not available to all US citizens, like it is for citizens of other countries. Even for what many consider upper-middle class Americans, getting an education can mean huge debts. Forget about them, it's even harder to afford an education when you're poor and need to work, or you're homeless and need to eat...

Also, you speak of stopping people from "being bad". Would you like to compare the crims statistics of a country like Canada or Norway with the US? If you don't think that's a fair example you can compare comparable cities from the Canada and the US. There are a lot less people "being bad" in more just societies, because there is less motivation and reason for them to do such things.

Quote:

You can tell people that they are going to get whatever negative thing for do something all you want. But if someone wants to do it, they are going to do it. Our full jails around the nation are proof of that.

Yet, the jails in the other countries I cited are not quite so full. Thanks, for helping me prove my point.

Quote:

Fine, lets do that. Tell me when you figure out how to let everyone on this planet vote on every issue and how keep anyone and everyone from not getting more power and control than someone else. When you figure this out call china so they can finally iron out the creases in Communism, im sure they would like to finally not have to have someone in charge to make sure everyone gets the same stuff.

It does not have to be planet-wide, that's just silly. Certain things which are right for some cultures are not right for others. But all countries should protect the human rights of their citizens, of course. It's unrealistic to have every citizen vote on every issue that ever comes up in government. Not only do the common people lack the expertise, but it's not practical!! However, you can have far more fair systems of representation than you have in the US, so that the voice of the people is heard and carried out and the people can have more of an impact and say in how their nation operates. Like I mentioned about, having a system of proportional representation makes it possible for all voices and views to have a say in government in accordance to how popular they are. That's just one example of how to put more say in the hands of the people.

Also, another example is that elections should not be financed by huge corporations and special interests so that the common person has very little impact or chance to run for office. Unless they are bankrolled by special interests - like they are in the US - the people have very little say in what happens. Like I keep saying, common US citizens are good people. If they had the facts and had a say, they would change things. But they don't. Much of public policy is not decided by the people, it is dictated to them and decided for them. Of course these same special interests also control the media too, so they people don't even know what is going on or what to object to. Unless you are a part of that establishment, you have no way to make an impact or run for a significant office in the US or change a damn thing. This process should be open to everyone regardless of their political views.

Like I said before, everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. There should not be a ruling class.

I don't understand how you can argue with that. If you want to propose different solutions, I can definitely understand that though...

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page