I get the feeling he just interprets things anyway he can so they will fit in with the ideology he is currently kowtowing to, regardless of the original intention.Cybargs wrote:
Your lack at interpretation shocks me.lowing wrote:
Promote general welfare, it does not state PROVIDE general welfare.Cybargs wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My evidence? Govt. controlled retirement, Govt. controlled education. Govt. controlled health care. Govt. controlled industry, all ofr the sake of making our lives equal and fair. Is that evidence enough?ruisleipa wrote:
well, you missed it by 4-9 yeasr depending on where you stand with your first wild guess. If you use facts to support your argument, make sure the facts are correct yeah? As for the context of the post, I guess you mean this general and unfounded statement: "I know most people that choose to be taken care of hate those that take care of themselves." You know that do you? Based on what? I'd love to hear your evidence for that particular sweeping generalisation.lowing wrote:
Oh I am sorry, missed it by 4 years yet she was the leader of your conservative party for longer. too bad you can not address the context of the post and only only are able to attack the dates
Holy crap you really don't understand this at ALL do you? You are so wrong it is hard to know where to begin pointing out your flaws, although I suspect there is no point.lowing wrote:
To redistribute wealth so we are the same and dendent on govt. is the same goals for communism and socialism
lol wut? Even a definition of capitalism uses the word 'social'.lowing wrote:
Kinda why communism uses the base word social in its definition.
Really? So you define promote and provide as the same thing? you are the only one.Cybargs wrote:
Your lack at interpretation shocks me.lowing wrote:
Promote general welfare, it does not state PROVIDE general welfare.Cybargs wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[joke]lowing is the local Sith, get used to it or leave DST [/joke]ruisleipa wrote:
Holy crap you really don't understand this at ALL do you? You are so wrong it is hard to know where to begin pointing out your flaws, although I suspect there is no point.lowing wrote:
To redistribute wealth so we are the same and dendent on govt. is the same goals for communism and socialismlol wut? Even a definition of capitalism uses the word 'social'.lowing wrote:
Kinda why communism uses the base word social in its definition.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Hell, most people would consider me to be a pretty far right leaning person (but only when economics are involved) and he argued with me for two days because I wasn't repeating Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck verbatim. He's so far gone into believing a political party that honestly doesn't give two shits whether he agrees with them or votes for him that it's quite disheartening to talk to him on any subject. You can save yourself a lot of time and headaches if you just consult the Republican Party platform before starting a dialogue with lowing.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry, it is the very definition of close-minded. Sad thing is that you're only fooling yourself. Why do you feel the need to stick so strongly to one mode of thinking? There are myriad ways of understanding everything. It's not a dichotomy, not an us vs. them, black or white situation. Generally I lean to the left of the political spectrum, but there are times when I agree with a more right-wing view. I'm only kidding myself if I slavishly follow one party or one line of thought. If I do so I am not rationally and intellectually analysing the situation, I am dumbly following someone else. To be honest, slavishly following politicians or a political ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it's towing the line. If you think that what you call 'liberalism''s main idea is to 'siphon someone else's efforts', then I'm afraid you have an extremely blinkered way of looking at it. Kinda like a supporter of Hitler's saying, 'hang on a minute, I'm not sure about this holocaust thing...[pause]...but I agree with Hitler most of the time so therefore I MUST agree with that as well.' It's unquestioning support for ideologies that causes so much anger and pain in the world, don't you think?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
lol, ok hit me I will let you try and tell me the vast differences between govt control over personal wealth, and well govt. control over personal wealth.ruisleipa wrote:
Holy crap you really don't understand this at ALL do you? You are so wrong it is hard to know where to begin pointing out your flaws, although I suspect there is no point.lowing wrote:
To redistribute wealth so we are the same and dendent on govt. is the same goals for communism and socialismlol wut? Even a definition of capitalism uses the word 'social'.lowing wrote:
Kinda why communism uses the base word social in its definition.
actually it doesn't
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use capitalism in a Sentence
See web results for capitalism
See images of capitalism
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
What are you talking about? You mean there is no role for government to play in a) providing pensions or security for people when they stop working, b) educating people, c) looking after people when they are sick, d) industry?lowing wrote:
My evidence? Govt. controlled retirement, Govt. controlled education. Govt. controlled health care. Govt. controlled industry, all ofr the sake of making our lives equal and fair. Is that evidence enough?
So wtf IS the government supposed to do? Fuck all by the sound of it.
Also, you realise the implication of your post, that you would prefer it if our societies were UNequal and UNfair? Nice.
Nope, you can save yourself alot of time if you would just acknowledge that govt. is not the solution to your problems, and niether is my money, and that personal responsiblity is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hell, most people would consider me to be a pretty far right leaning person (but only when economics are involved) and he argued with me for two days because I wasn't repeating Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck verbatim. He's so far gone into believing a political party that honestly doesn't give two shits whether he agrees with them or votes for him that it's quite disheartening to talk to him on any subject. You can save yourself a lot of time and headaches if you just consult the Republican Party platform before starting a dialogue with lowing.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry, it is the very definition of close-minded. Sad thing is that you're only fooling yourself. Why do you feel the need to stick so strongly to one mode of thinking? There are myriad ways of understanding everything. It's not a dichotomy, not an us vs. them, black or white situation. Generally I lean to the left of the political spectrum, but there are times when I agree with a more right-wing view. I'm only kidding myself if I slavishly follow one party or one line of thought. If I do so I am not rationally and intellectually analysing the situation, I am dumbly following someone else. To be honest, slavishly following politicians or a political ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it's towing the line. If you think that what you call 'liberalism''s main idea is to 'siphon someone else's efforts', then I'm afraid you have an extremely blinkered way of looking at it. Kinda like a supporter of Hitler's saying, 'hang on a minute, I'm not sure about this holocaust thing...[pause]...but I agree with Hitler most of the time so therefore I MUST agree with that as well.' It's unquestioning support for ideologies that causes so much anger and pain in the world, don't you think?
I am not a republican
Yes, I doubt most of the flag wavers for either party, the diehards who live and die with their party every election cycle, understand the root cause for many of the issues their party represents. Hell, lowing thinks you are economically conservative if you spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on national defense against the Cubans trying to swim to our shore.ruisleipa wrote:
I get the feeling he just interprets things anyway he can so they will fit in with the ideology he is currently kowtowing to, regardless of the original intention.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ok, lets take a little test then, i'll start a new thread for it.lowing wrote:
Nope, you can save yourself alot of time if you would just acknowledge that govt. is not the solution to your problems, and niether is my money, and that personal responsiblity is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hell, most people would consider me to be a pretty far right leaning person (but only when economics are involved) and he argued with me for two days because I wasn't repeating Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck verbatim. He's so far gone into believing a political party that honestly doesn't give two shits whether he agrees with them or votes for him that it's quite disheartening to talk to him on any subject. You can save yourself a lot of time and headaches if you just consult the Republican Party platform before starting a dialogue with lowing.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry, it is the very definition of close-minded. Sad thing is that you're only fooling yourself. Why do you feel the need to stick so strongly to one mode of thinking? There are myriad ways of understanding everything. It's not a dichotomy, not an us vs. them, black or white situation. Generally I lean to the left of the political spectrum, but there are times when I agree with a more right-wing view. I'm only kidding myself if I slavishly follow one party or one line of thought. If I do so I am not rationally and intellectually analysing the situation, I am dumbly following someone else. To be honest, slavishly following politicians or a political ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it's towing the line. If you think that what you call 'liberalism''s main idea is to 'siphon someone else's efforts', then I'm afraid you have an extremely blinkered way of looking at it. Kinda like a supporter of Hitler's saying, 'hang on a minute, I'm not sure about this holocaust thing...[pause]...but I agree with Hitler most of the time so therefore I MUST agree with that as well.' It's unquestioning support for ideologies that causes so much anger and pain in the world, don't you think?
I am not a republican
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Depends where you get your definition doesn't it?lowing wrote:
actually it doesn't
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use capitalism in a Sentence
See web results for capitalism
See images of capitalism
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights."
[source: capitalism.org]
This is the political definition. Since we're talking politics I assume this is what you're also talking about. Your definition is a non-essential economic one.
Base on the language and how it worked back then, yeah it is the same thing when you intemperate a 200 year old text. Or I can say the right to bear arms really mean the right to have bear arms for the militia.lowing wrote:
Really? So you define promote and provide as the same thing? you are the only one.Cybargs wrote:
Your lack at interpretation shocks me.lowing wrote:
Promote general welfare, it does not state PROVIDE general welfare.
Nope, there is a roll, and that roll is being met through existing taxes. My problem is that govt. by its mis-management wants to solve the problems of htese programs by siezing yet even more money from the earners who do not need or use these programs, instead of reviewing these programs and fixing them.ruisleipa wrote:
What are you talking about? You mean there is no role for government to play in a) providing pensions or security for people when they stop working, b) educating people, c) looking after people when they are sick, d) industry?lowing wrote:
My evidence? Govt. controlled retirement, Govt. controlled education. Govt. controlled health care. Govt. controlled industry, all ofr the sake of making our lives equal and fair. Is that evidence enough?
So wtf IS the government supposed to do? Fuck all by the sound of it.
Also, you realise the implication of your post, that you would prefer it if our societies were UNequal and UNfair? Nice.
Yes, I would prefer a govt. that provided equal opportunity, not equal results.
I'm getting used to itVaregg wrote:
[joke]lowing is the local Sith, get used to it or leave DST [/joke]
True, but it gives me something to do while I'm waiting for something more important to happenJohnG@lt wrote:
it's quite disheartening to talk to him on any subject. You can save yourself a lot of time and headaches if you just consult the Republican Party platform before starting a dialogue with lowing.
sorry, saying it is a social system is not saying it is socialistruisleipa wrote:
Depends where you get your definition doesn't it?lowing wrote:
actually it doesn't
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use capitalism in a Sentence
See web results for capitalism
See images of capitalism
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights."
[source: capitalism.org]
This is the political definition. Since we're talking politics I assume this is what you're also talking about. Your definition is a non-essential economic one.
here is the difference.
com⋅mu⋅nism /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use communism in a Sentence
See web results for communism
See images of communism
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
oops and socialism uses the term communism in it
so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
please explain the major difference.
how it worked back then was people digging a life for themselves out of the land, not through govt. handouts. sorry.Cybargs wrote:
Base on the language and how it worked back then, yeah it is the same thing when you intemperate a 200 year old text. Or I can say the right to bear arms really mean the right to have bear arms for the militia.lowing wrote:
Really? So you define promote and provide as the same thing? you are the only one.Cybargs wrote:
Your lack at interpretation shocks me.
like cash your welfare check?ruisleipa wrote:
I'm getting used to itVaregg wrote:
[joke]lowing is the local Sith, get used to it or leave DST [/joke]True, but it gives me something to do while I'm waiting for something more important to happenJohnG@lt wrote:
it's quite disheartening to talk to him on any subject. You can save yourself a lot of time and headaches if you just consult the Republican Party platform before starting a dialogue with lowing.
oh man...
Your first point was that because some definition of communism you found uses the word social in it, then communism and socialism are the same thing. my point was that you can define capitalism using the word social as well, so what using your brilliant deduction then all three must be the same thing: clearly untrue.
"oops and socialism uses the term communism in it"
loooool did you even read the definition? (nice use of dictionary.com by the way). It says: 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
So, you're now wanting to use a Marxist analysis of the political spectrum to support your own ideology??????? Not only that, even that definition specifically says that they are NOT the same thing! Oh man, what are you on, and where can I get some?
As for the 'roll' [sic] of government, which you think is currently provided for by taxes, would you mind telling us what you think it is, if it is not to provide retirement help, health care, education, or jobs in industry?
Your first point was that because some definition of communism you found uses the word social in it, then communism and socialism are the same thing. my point was that you can define capitalism using the word social as well, so what using your brilliant deduction then all three must be the same thing: clearly untrue.
"oops and socialism uses the term communism in it"
loooool did you even read the definition? (nice use of dictionary.com by the way). It says: 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
So, you're now wanting to use a Marxist analysis of the political spectrum to support your own ideology??????? Not only that, even that definition specifically says that they are NOT the same thing! Oh man, what are you on, and where can I get some?
As for the 'roll' [sic] of government, which you think is currently provided for by taxes, would you mind telling us what you think it is, if it is not to provide retirement help, health care, education, or jobs in industry?
lmao I'm not on 'welfare' as you put it, thanks very much. As if that would even be an insult lol.lowing wrote:
like cash your welfare check?
Well, that's something we differ on. If you accept Government charity there should definitely be the shame of being a failure attached to it.ruisleipa wrote:
lmao I'm not on 'welfare' as you put it, thanks very much. As if that would even be an insult lol.lowing wrote:
like cash your welfare check?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nope, everyone elses uses it, I just agree with them. If there is a major difference between socialism and communism, let me hear it. Tell me how the biggest COMMUNIST nation used the term SOCIALIST in its title USSR ( union of soviet socialist republics)ruisleipa wrote:
oh man...
Your first point was that because some definition of communism you found uses the word social in it, then communism and socialism are the same thing. my point was that you can define capitalism using the word social as well, so what using your brilliant deduction then all three must be the same thing: clearly untrue.
"oops and socialism uses the term communism in it"
loooool did you even read the definition? (nice use of dictionary.com by the way). It says: 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
So, you're now wanting to use a Marxist analysis of the political spectrum to support your own ideology??????? Not only that, even that definition specifically says that they are NOT the same thing! Oh man, what are you on, and where can I get some?
As for the 'roll' [sic] of government, which you think is currently provided for by taxes, would you mind telling us what you think it is, if it is not to provide retirement help, health care, education, or jobs in industry?
Well I will tell you what the roll of govt. is.
It is to provide national security, and fund the sustainment of infrastructure, to guarantee our freedoms and protect our right to PURSUE Life Liberty and Happiness through our own successes and failures.
It is not to provide us fucking jobs, retirement, education or heaalthcare. It provides us the freedoms to take care of ourselves.
See that is the difference, it would be to me, if I lived my life on govt. welfare. As for you, I guess you would be proud of yourself.ruisleipa wrote:
lmao I'm not on 'welfare' as you put it, thanks very much. As if that would even be an insult lol.lowing wrote:
like cash your welfare check?
Why you think even with great welfare in rich nations productivity is still high. Humans naturally want to succeed greatly. I'd say it's mainly due to greed. Even kids who are set for the rest of their life work hard and expand their family fortune. I think family and passing down your genes is one of greatest factors to success.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, that's something we differ on. If you accept Government charity there should definitely be the shame of being a failure attached to it.ruisleipa wrote:
lmao I'm not on 'welfare' as you put it, thanks very much. As if that would even be an insult lol.lowing wrote:
like cash your welfare check?
Well, now we get to the insults, although well done lowing - you made it quite far without getting personal.lowing wrote:
See that is the difference, it would be to me, if I lived my life on govt. welfare. As for you, I guess you would be proud of yourself.
No, I wouldn't be proud of it, but I wouldn't neccesarily feel ashamed either. See, I reckon that sometimes anyone's life can fuck up, and I'm happy my state will help me if I need it. I've paid and do pay taxes for just this reason. Sure, I think it's not good if someone spent ALL their working life on welfare, but sometimes everyone needs some help. Doesn't it depend WHY a given person is on welfare? In another thread someone mentioned veterans who have been injured in one of the many wars America has fought, and are barely scratching a living on the streets on a day-to-day basis. Surely those people SHOULD be given comprehensive welfare - even you must agree. But maybe not, as you lump everyone on welfare together in the 'no-good scroungers' pile. A friend of mine has been off work for 8 months receiving Union unemployment money (which he paid his dues for years while he was working incidentally), but he CAN work and I've told him he's a lazy fucker, and should get off his arse and get a job. But if he's been injured, or is medically unable to work, or some other reasons, then I still pay my taxes which go towards the system keeping his arse afloat because I KNOW it could be me someday in the same situation.
Same here, it depends WHY you're getting welfare. Are you a lazy arse who just can't be fucked to work? Then go get a job. Yes some people are like this. Or, have you been injured and can't work for medical reasons? Fair enough, we'll help you.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, that's something we differ on. If you accept Government charity there should definitely be the shame of being a failure attached to it.
I just realised I have no idea what the OP of this thread was