Yes, but santa claus has nothing to do with the meaning of christmas. He's a pretty recent creation.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846100 said:
Barack Obama and Socialism
- Thread starter Mistah Kurtz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Preventing the murder of someone with no health insurance by criminals? What are you talking about? You mean uninsured people getting shot for their wallets? I suppose we are responsible to try to protect them by employing police officers to enforce anti-murder laws, if that's what you mean.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846112 said:
You've missed my point entirely. The five heart attack old fuck scenario is assuming a socialized health care system. Do you want to have to pay higher taxes to pay for the open heart surgeries of a guy who's going to die soon anyway? Is it worth millions of dollars? What about smokers? I smoke cigarettes, I don't think you should have to pay for my chemotherapy when I get cancer, do you? What about huge fat fucks? Should you be responsible to pay for their gastric bypass surgeries because they wouldn't put the fork down?
Maybe everyone should be responsible for their own choices. Seems a lot simpler.
True, but you've now just posited that Christmas has disconnected from it's christian/pagan roots and is now celebrated secularly, which is why atheists continue to celebrate it secularly - thus asserting my claim that the things we teach children greatly influence them in adulthood.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846119 said:
Because someone who doesn't have any talent has to work more hours to get the money they want. If they're willing to work in school to develop new talents, then they have opportunities to earn more money in the future, but this requires hard work, sacrifice, and a huge investment of time and taking on debt. Those that take the risk and do the work are rewarded in the long run with a lucrative career.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846131 said:
You aren't paying for someone to protect him. You're paying for officers to enforce our laws. Police officers have a greater benefit from their cost as they vastly cut down on the number of hard working people having their wealth stolen by people who don't want to work as hard and would rather steal from rich people then try to become rich themselves.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846160 said:
(Yes, I just implied that socialists are thieves)
Are you suggesting people are going to start investing in land because it can't be stolen? Jesus christ you're grasping at straws if you honestly believe that capitalism inevitably leads to everyone taking their money out of their economy and spending it all on land. This is nonsense.
If you don't have to study and can get through school then more power to you - the object is not the amount of practice it took but the output of your end result. Some people are better at certain things than others - some have a higher capacity for learning, some are stronger and more athletic, etc. It's not up to the federal government (i.e. - everyone) to attempt to compensate for unfortunate luck.Cheeze_Pavilion post=18.74687.846167 said:
U(nited) S(oviet) S(ocialist) R(epublic). What do any of you know about the USSR? U.S. centered history classes at best? Beleive it or not just because a country doesn't agree with the U.S. doesn't make it evil and the U.S.S.R.'s problems didn't come from Socialism. They came from a genecidal fucktard that constantly killed his own citizen's without which we probably would have lost WW2.
If your reference for socialism and communism comes from age old propaganda then ofcourse it sounds bad. Capitalism is good for encouragement, but Socialism in the form of things such as public schools, worker's unions, public works projects, etc. Prevents the immovable lowest class, basically modern age slavery in which the higher class profits off other people's work.
Ofcourse in truth we have no clue what we're talking about is the impression I get from most of these posts, so I think all of us, myself included, are just using the internet as a costume to seem bigger and smarter then we all really are.
If your reference for socialism and communism comes from age old propaganda then ofcourse it sounds bad. Capitalism is good for encouragement, but Socialism in the form of things such as public schools, worker's unions, public works projects, etc. Prevents the immovable lowest class, basically modern age slavery in which the higher class profits off other people's work.
Ofcourse in truth we have no clue what we're talking about is the impression I get from most of these posts, so I think all of us, myself included, are just using the internet as a costume to seem bigger and smarter then we all really are.
The reason it takes place on the day of what used to be a pagan holiday is because christians were attempting to get people to convert to Christianity and specifically chose that day to celebrate christs birth to take attention away from the Pagan holiday. The day a holiday takes place on is irrelevant to the meaning of the occasion.Imitation Saccharin post=18.74687.846088 said:
1) Communism = Socialism + Human Nature.
2) Whether or not you agree that a country can live and thrive under this system tells a lot about your own personal concepts of the word "fairness". I will use the American education system as an example.
To many, "fairness" means to hold all people under the same standard and let them be the ones to strive toward those goals. To argue that the standard of fairness was not set up by people like you (or you were not part of this country at the time of the standard's inception) is meaningless. This is the system that you live in, and you should play by its rules (when in Rome...etc.) in order to have a happier and more fullfilling life. To people who live and thrive under this system, "life is not fair"....but that is what personal resiliency and determination are for.
Yet a new school of thought evolved from within, near the end of the 1960's. Ironically, it was inspired from the Civil Rights' Movement. Though it was kept out of organized government, it came within the field of education. The old standards of "fairness" were obliterated when people started to question or challenge the above standards as the "way". People began to interpret fairness as "give everyone what they need"- or in its precise case...give every student what they need. In essence, this was the most racist argument of all (that students of one particular racial and ethnic type were intellectually incapable of meeting the standards in the "white man's world"). All of a sudden, "trivial"
things like deadlines, projects, traditional grooming and dress, prayer, facts, grading rules, rubrics, even attendance...it all became instantaneously challenged by people under the impression that it would give students a better life, and a better chance at opportunity. In place of facts and basic computational reasoning, higher order thinking, applied knowledge, student centered learning...all were by-productsof that system. Ironically, as far as motivating students...this approach was working.
****SIDE NOTE: However, not all standards for teachers, schools, states, and students were equal. G.W. Bush, in an effort to promote equality in education, held an open forum, and met with political leaders of almost every society within America. They developed the rubric of and in the end, No Child Left Behind was unleashed on the world. This has completely fucked the education system in America, not only because the new standard of fairness (sub-standard as it may be) has been initiated, but also because now the student can be in complete control of the SUCCESS of said educational system simply by passing or failing a multiple choice test.******
The secondary problem with said system is it immediately backfired once you graduated high school. Many of the students that are catered to in schools end up having to take remedial courses after failing to pass standard collegiate entrance exams- placing cost as more of a deterrent to higher education- elites know this. Many more students now graduate from high school and enter the working world...subsequently losing their first job because nobody ever told them that they needed to be places on time, or projects would be needed to be completed by a specific deadline, you actually need to interact with other humans, etc. After several
jobs, a person gets a negative reference list, and then (barring imagination and luck), get plastered into either a dead end job or out of the workforce entirely.
3) Although I do not quite share pillowfire's "enthusiasm" for Socialistic policies, I must agree with his above statement: no one can point to a country that ended in revolution, adopted Socialism as its guiding light, and stayed the course into a communal society. In the end, human nature prevailed, and without any incentive to be better (a better worker, a better teacher, a better scientist, a better inventor, etc.) than the rest, all the opportunities for generating wealth failed, and in the end, government took the responsibility upon itself to create incentive. Naturally, it is cheaper and easier for government to create negative incentive ("Do this/succeed in this/ Achieve this or I'll kill you and send your family the bill for the bullet"), then positive incentive.
Even in countries with strong senses of nationalism and racial unity/uniformity cannot inspire their own people to always take care of the commune- in the end, humankind will ultimately look out for "number one"- in the case of many, number one includes themselves and their families. This is NOT a bad thing...indeed, it is the greatest builder of wealth, ideas, and knowledge. To say that the United States is a better breeding ground for socialism than any other country (when no three countries on earth boast as many languages and dialects as spoken on Manhatten Island) is absurd. America embraces too many political, cultural, and religious differences to place any political system on its people other than a Democratic Republic. To invite Socialism will invite many other problems within the many races of American society (I do not have the time to list them). AND don't argue with me that that is only what the (english/scottish/welsh/german/italian/czech/do I really need to name them all?) would do. If you would like to see what African tribes are doing...look into Darfur.
The main reason why Socialism has never worked in the world is human nature- there are simply too many takers- too many people who want things for free, and have a sense of entitlement simply for living on the planet and breathing, successfully breeding, or waking up in the morning. They feed on the media and their need to justify every little discomfort or pain in their lives as the fault of society, and continue to state that "if I had this (or that), my life would be better". Then when government passes said program, they sign up...AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY NEED SAID GOVERNMENT PROGRAM BUT COULD POCKET THE SPARE CHANGE. After all, fair is fair, right?
The point of Capitalism is: If you can identify exactly it is what you want, we already have the perfect system for you to go out there and get it/make it happen. You simply have to be just a little bit better/or more determined/or more clever than the next guy. The flip side of this coin is this: In order to have equal opportunity to succeed, every American must also have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL.
2) Whether or not you agree that a country can live and thrive under this system tells a lot about your own personal concepts of the word "fairness". I will use the American education system as an example.
To many, "fairness" means to hold all people under the same standard and let them be the ones to strive toward those goals. To argue that the standard of fairness was not set up by people like you (or you were not part of this country at the time of the standard's inception) is meaningless. This is the system that you live in, and you should play by its rules (when in Rome...etc.) in order to have a happier and more fullfilling life. To people who live and thrive under this system, "life is not fair"....but that is what personal resiliency and determination are for.
Yet a new school of thought evolved from within, near the end of the 1960's. Ironically, it was inspired from the Civil Rights' Movement. Though it was kept out of organized government, it came within the field of education. The old standards of "fairness" were obliterated when people started to question or challenge the above standards as the "way". People began to interpret fairness as "give everyone what they need"- or in its precise case...give every student what they need. In essence, this was the most racist argument of all (that students of one particular racial and ethnic type were intellectually incapable of meeting the standards in the "white man's world"). All of a sudden, "trivial"
things like deadlines, projects, traditional grooming and dress, prayer, facts, grading rules, rubrics, even attendance...it all became instantaneously challenged by people under the impression that it would give students a better life, and a better chance at opportunity. In place of facts and basic computational reasoning, higher order thinking, applied knowledge, student centered learning...all were by-productsof that system. Ironically, as far as motivating students...this approach was working.****SIDE NOTE: However, not all standards for teachers, schools, states, and students were equal. G.W. Bush, in an effort to promote equality in education, held an open forum, and met with political leaders of almost every society within America. They developed the rubric of and in the end, No Child Left Behind was unleashed on the world. This has completely fucked the education system in America, not only because the new standard of fairness (sub-standard as it may be) has been initiated, but also because now the student can be in complete control of the SUCCESS of said educational system simply by passing or failing a multiple choice test.******
The secondary problem with said system is it immediately backfired once you graduated high school. Many of the students that are catered to in schools end up having to take remedial courses after failing to pass standard collegiate entrance exams- placing cost as more of a deterrent to higher education- elites know this. Many more students now graduate from high school and enter the working world...subsequently losing their first job because nobody ever told them that they needed to be places on time, or projects would be needed to be completed by a specific deadline, you actually need to interact with other humans, etc. After several
jobs, a person gets a negative reference list, and then (barring imagination and luck), get plastered into either a dead end job or out of the workforce entirely.
3) Although I do not quite share pillowfire's "enthusiasm" for Socialistic policies, I must agree with his above statement: no one can point to a country that ended in revolution, adopted Socialism as its guiding light, and stayed the course into a communal society. In the end, human nature prevailed, and without any incentive to be better (a better worker, a better teacher, a better scientist, a better inventor, etc.) than the rest, all the opportunities for generating wealth failed, and in the end, government took the responsibility upon itself to create incentive. Naturally, it is cheaper and easier for government to create negative incentive ("Do this/succeed in this/ Achieve this or I'll kill you and send your family the bill for the bullet"), then positive incentive.
Even in countries with strong senses of nationalism and racial unity/uniformity cannot inspire their own people to always take care of the commune- in the end, humankind will ultimately look out for "number one"- in the case of many, number one includes themselves and their families. This is NOT a bad thing...indeed, it is the greatest builder of wealth, ideas, and knowledge. To say that the United States is a better breeding ground for socialism than any other country (when no three countries on earth boast as many languages and dialects as spoken on Manhatten Island) is absurd. America embraces too many political, cultural, and religious differences to place any political system on its people other than a Democratic Republic. To invite Socialism will invite many other problems within the many races of American society (I do not have the time to list them). AND don't argue with me that that is only what the (english/scottish/welsh/german/italian/czech/do I really need to name them all?) would do. If you would like to see what African tribes are doing...look into Darfur.
The main reason why Socialism has never worked in the world is human nature- there are simply too many takers- too many people who want things for free, and have a sense of entitlement simply for living on the planet and breathing, successfully breeding, or waking up in the morning. They feed on the media and their need to justify every little discomfort or pain in their lives as the fault of society, and continue to state that "if I had this (or that), my life would be better". Then when government passes said program, they sign up...AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY NEED SAID GOVERNMENT PROGRAM BUT COULD POCKET THE SPARE CHANGE. After all, fair is fair, right?
The point of Capitalism is: If you can identify exactly it is what you want, we already have the perfect system for you to go out there and get it/make it happen. You simply have to be just a little bit better/or more determined/or more clever than the next guy. The flip side of this coin is this: In order to have equal opportunity to succeed, every American must also have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL.
No, the soviet union was brought down by a myriad of devastating economic issues. Yours is a far-left based simplification of the fall of the USSR. What do you know of the soviet union other than what your hippie friends tell you? Ask an economics teacher - they'll explain it to you better than I can.swift tongued post=18.74687.846197 said:
If anything Stalin's killing of his own people probably prevented the soviet union from collapsing sooner. By taking more recipients out of the money pot everyone got a larger share and thus less people starved, raising the standard of living for those who were still alive.
/ fucking thread.Trace2010 post=18.74687.846204 said:1) Communism = Socialism + Human Nature.
2) Whether or not you agree that a country can live and thrive under this system tells a lot about your own personal concepts of the word "fairness". I will use the American education system as an example.
To many, "fairness" means to hold all people under the same standard and let them be the ones to strive toward those goals. To argue that the standard of fairness was not set up by people like you (or you were not part of this country at the time of the standard's inception) is meaningless. This is the system that you live in, and you should play by its rules (when in Rome...etc.) in order to have a happier and more fullfilling life. To people who live and thrive under this system, "life is not fair"....but that is what personal resiliency and determination are for.
Yet a new school of thought evolved from within, near the end of the 1960's. Ironically, it was inspired from the Civil Rights' Movement. Though it was kept out of organized government, it came within the field of education. The old standards of "fairness" were obliterated when people started to question or challenge the above standards as the "way". People began to interpret fairness as "give everyone what they need"- or in its precise case...give every student what they need. In essence, this was the most racist argument of all (that students of one particular racial and ethnic type were intellectually incapable of meeting the standards in the "white man's world"). All of a sudden, "trivial"
****SIDE NOTE: However, not all standards for teachers, schools, states, and students were equal. G.W. Bush, in an effort to promote equality in education, held an open forum, and met with political leaders of almost every society within America. They developed the rubric of and in the end, No Child Left Behind was unleashed on the world. This has completely fucked the education system in America, not only because the new standard of fairness (sub-standard as it may be) has been initiated, but also because now the student can be in complete control of the SUCCESS of said educational system simply by passing or failing a multiple choice test.******
The secondary problem with said system is it immediately backfired once you graduated high school. Many of the students that are catered to in schools end up having to take remedial courses after failing to pass standard collegiate entrance exams- placing cost as more of a deterrent to higher education- elites know this. Many more students now graduate from high school and enter the working world...subsequently losing their first job because nobody ever told them that they needed to be places on time, or projects would be needed to be completed by a specific deadline, you actually need to interact with other humans, etc. After several
jobs, a person gets a negative reference list, and then (barring imagination and luck), get plastered into either a dead end job or out of the workforce entirely.
3) Although I do not quite share pillowfire's "enthusiasm" for Socialistic policies, I must agree with his above statement: no one can point to a country that ended in revolution, adopted Socialism as its guiding light, and stayed the course into a communal society. In the end, human nature prevailed, and without any incentive to be better (a better worker, a better teacher, a better scientist, a better inventor, etc.) than the rest, all the opportunities for generating wealth failed, and in the end, government took the responsibility upon itself to create incentive. Naturally, it is cheaper and easier for government to create negative incentive ("Do this/succeed in this/ Achieve this or I'll kill you and send your family the bill for the bullet"), then positive incentive.
Even in countries with strong senses of nationalism and racial unity/uniformity cannot inspire their own people to always take care of the commune- in the end, humankind will ultimately look out for "number one"- in the case of many, number one includes themselves and their families. This is NOT a bad thing...indeed, it is the greatest builder of wealth, ideas, and knowledge. To say that the United States is a better breeding ground for socialism than any other country (when no three countries on earth boast as many languages and dialects as spoken on Manhatten Island) is absurd. America embraces too many political, cultural, and religious differences to place any political system on its people other than a Democratic Republic. To invite Socialism will invite many other problems within the many races of American society (I do not have the time to list them). AND don't argue with me that that is only what the (english/scottish/welsh/german/italian/czech/do I really need to name them all?) would do. If you would like to see what African tribes are doing...look into Darfur.
The main reason why Socialism has never worked in the world is human nature- there are simply too many takers- too many people who want things for free, and have a sense of entitlement simply for living on the planet and breathing, successfully breeding, or waking up in the morning. They feed on the media and their need to justify every little discomfort or pain in their lives as the fault of society, and continue to state that "if I had this (or that), my life would be better". Then when government passes said program, they sign up...AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY NEED SAID GOVERNMENT PROGRAM BUT COULD POCKET THE SPARE CHANGE. After all, fair is fair, right?
The point of Capitalism is: If you can identify exactly it is what you want, we already have the perfect system for you to go out there and get it/make it happen. You simply have to be just a little bit better/or more determined/or more clever than the next guy. The flip side of this coin is this: In order to have equal opportunity to succeed, every American must also have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL.
It's not like we're supposed to be celebrating anyone's birthday as the entire message behind the holiday.Mistah Kurtz post=18.74687.846203 said:
Because that would just make you look silly.