In answer to your question....Bubbalo wrote:
Uh-huh. Have I once said "Communism is better than Capitalism"? No. Not once. Not only that, but surely if capitalism works so well for everyone, you could afford to let them in? Right?
The second part of your statement is a rather simplistic and no....their are other considerations besides our economic system that do not allow us to just 'let them in'.Bubbalo wrote:
Cuba worked out *very* well though. Not only that, but even if you're right currently doesn't mean communism isn't a goal we can't work towards , slowing grower more community conscious until one day it's feasible.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-05-19 11:23:19)
No, like all of the others which have elements of capitalism, Mexico is a mixed economy.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, Mexico *is* capitalist.
A Republican system is one which does not have a monarch. A Democracy is one in which the people rule. A Democratic Republic is a system without a monarch which contains elements of Democracy (but not necessarily IS a democracy). It is a hybrid of the two and they are not exclusive of each other.Bubbalo wrote:
But no, you don't understand, you cannot create a hybrid of Republican and Democracy. It's like saying the USSR was a hybrid of Communism and Totalitarianism.
The American Indians? Running this place better than the US? Give me a break. Granted complete isolation from the rest of this world to this day, they would still be running amok over here, bashing baby skulls into tree trunks, stealing women and horses, and generally making complete fools out of themselves. Unite into a superpower of a nation? Oh, come off it!cpt.fass1 wrote:
I'm proud to be an American, our country was created to get away from persucition in europe. I think the American Indians would have been doing a much better job running it they we do.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-22 06:26:45)
Yeah. That's all your natives did. Steal and kill. Totally.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Granted complete isolation from the rest of this world to this day, they would still be running amok over here, bashing baby skulls into tree trunks, stealing women and horses, and generally making complete fools out of themselves.
Right, because only superpowers are any good?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unite into a superpower of a nation? Oh, come off it!
What's the story in that? You'll have to excuse me, it's just that I don't know anyone young enough to watch it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to take a wild stab here, but I'd say you've been watching too much Pocahontas.
Interesting. Of course, foolish me. I hadn't thought that your sharp intellect and keen wit would tear apart my post for the benefit of humanity.Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah. That's all your natives did. Steal and kill. Totally.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Granted complete isolation from the rest of this world to this day, they would still be running amok over here, bashing baby skulls into tree trunks, stealing women and horses, and generally making complete fools out of themselves.Right, because only superpowers are any good?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unite into a superpower of a nation? Oh, come off it!What's the story in that? You'll have to excuse me, it's just that I don't know anyone young enough to watch it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm going to take a wild stab here, but I'd say you've been watching too much Pocahontas.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-22 07:18:51)
You are incorrect. First: One type of system influences the other, they don't exist in a vacuum. E.g. you won't find too many Democracies with a command economy, and a purely capitalist state CANNOT exist in a totalitarian, or socialist state, even if they are watered down. Second, nothing is ever pure. I would have thought that was clear by now. Third, Democratic Republic, with respect to the US, refers entirely to its political system. It is a Republic because it does not have a Monarch (and you either do or don't, so yes, that is 100% correct). It is Democratic because we elect our representatives. It is NOT a Democracy, because the people do not rule here. The representatives we elect do. So, on that count, you are wrong. The US is NOT 100% Democratic.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, for F***SAKE PEOPLE! There are *economic* systems, there are *types of nations*, and there are *political* system. The USSR was *purely* totatalitarian. That was it's political system. It was *purely* a federation of republics. That was the type of nation. It was, depending on who you asked, either *purely* communist or not communist at all. That was it's economic system. By the same token, the US is a democratic (or demarchic, some would say) republic. Not a mixture of the two, but 100% both. For example, I am not part white and part male. Instead, I have 100% of both those qualities.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-22 08:27:52)
All a Republic is, is a system of government that isn't a Monarchy. What makes it 'undemocratic' is that the system isn't a democracy.Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, but that which makes it undemocratic is not the republicness.
Also, it would be possible to have a totalitarian capitalist state. Just very hard.
And this has what to do with a Capitalist state?Bubbalo wrote:
A totalitarian state could have complete political control whilst still allowing class mobility.
Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-05-26 07:16:57)
That looks a bit like propaganda to me. How much *exactly* is "More than $1M"? If you want to show me something, show me how much they are PAYING in taxes, not how much they are saving. I have noticed the Democrats always leave out that critical detail. Also wondering what the percentages are? Absolute numbers don't mean a lot when comparing the 'very rich' to the 'not very rich.'MorbidFetus wrote:
Rich people tend to sicken me. I don't think we should decide the max someone should make though. I'd just be happy if the govt. stops catering to them.
Bush's tax cuts:
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/3 … Income.pdf
(in short, a millionaire gets back 43K while someone making 40K only gets back 17 dollars)
Shameful. Looks to me like we should decrease spending. A lot.MorbidFetus wrote:
Where we are getting money for a tax cut (top countries we are borrowing from)
The fortunes of the rich are built on the backs of the poor.whittsend wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.
Well, if someone goes out of their way to give someone something we don't currently have, wouldn't that be considered favoritism?whittsend wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.
How short is your memory span? We were just discussing whether a totalitarian state could be capitalist. A key feature of a capitalist state is mobility. If there's some other problem I've over looked, please tell me.whittsend wrote:
And this has what to do with a Capitalist state?
Bollocks.Bubbalo wrote:
The fortunes of the rich are built on the backs of the poor.whittsend wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.
The comparison is like saying; if you and I were both mugged by the same man and he took more money from me than from you, he was showing you favoritism. When speaking of taxation, we are never talking about 'giving.' It is important to remember that we are always talking about TAKING.MorbidFetus wrote:
Well, if someone goes out of their way to give someone something we don't currently have, wouldn't that be considered favoritism?whittsend wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.
The tax system heavily favors the wealthy. If you want to read a very eye opening book on the subject, try the book Perfectly Legal.whittsend wrote:
That looks a bit like propaganda to me. How much *exactly* is "More than $1M"? If you want to show me something, show me how much they are PAYING in taxes, not how much they are saving. I have noticed the Democrats always leave out that critical detail. Also wondering what the percentages are? Absolute numbers don't mean a lot when comparing the 'very rich' to the 'not very rich.'MorbidFetus wrote:
Rich people tend to sicken me. I don't think we should decide the max someone should make though. I'd just be happy if the govt. stops catering to them.
Bush's tax cuts:
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/3 … Income.pdf
(in short, a millionaire gets back 43K while someone making 40K only gets back 17 dollars)
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.Shameful. Looks to me like we should decrease spending. A lot.MorbidFetus wrote:
Where we are getting money for a tax cut (top countries we are borrowing from)
That comparison is like saying taxes are a crime.whittsend wrote:
The comparison is like saying; if you and I were both mugged by the same man and he took more money from me than from you, he was showing you favoritism. When speaking of taxation, we are never talking about 'giving.' It is important to remember that we are always talking about TAKING.
Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-05-26 08:25:08)