I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
I thought he was joking around when this conversation started about sterilizing everyone started. It was funny until I realized he was serious.
Yea, this has gone a little bit off the deep end. The joking about it was funny and light hearted, but this is insane... It boggles my mind to hear someone who thinks the government tapping our phones, which without a warrant is WRONG, is worse than the government taking money straight out of our bank accounts, talk about the government controling who is able to have children and who isn't... That would be the most insane violation of our rights ever put forth by the government.
True, I know. But what else can be done. I'd like to know. Anyone who is for child's rights, or a fetus (is there much difference between the two from these people) would I'm sure like to fix what we have in this country.
We could just take all of the invalids, malcontents, homosexuals, minorities, and anybody who doesn't agree with Squirrel and and put them in a forced labor camp in the middle of nowhere. We could feed them a diet of about 1200 calories a day but force them to burn about 3000 a day. That way they would die from malnutrition.
Right out of the playbook of Joseph Stalin...Every liberals hero.
Communisma 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. 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.
socialisma 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. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
phobicsquirrel:
Your statement makes you laughable.
im laughable but, you want to promote sterilization as a from of weeding out the dumb people. HA! this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life.
phobicsquirrel:
Obama is anything but that.
oh he isnt? Obama is looking to have single payer health care plan. this IS a socialist/Communist by nature and by the definitions above. (provided by dictionary.com) how about the growing control over the banking industry with tarp? is that not a collective ownership via taxpayers? what about the stimulus plan where we expanded welfare (a social system), or how about the government running GM? is that not a collective ownership via taxpayers? how about the concept of
redistribution of wealth ? this concept of taking from the rich and distributing it for "economic justice" is very communist.
please tell me how this is not communist. then again, maybe you are right. maybe he believes more in Faschism (A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls) the severe Banking regulations and housing regulations, the new medical insurance regulations, the fact that we have a pay czar, and the fact that every type of business in the us is regulated above and beyond what it should be, all point to the Fascist theory
maybe he is just for power of the Federal Government, taking parts from other styles and using them where it fits best in his mind. Fascist, socialist, or Communist, it all boils down to overbearing government regulation and control over our lives. more than any corporation has or could do.
way to get your news from COMEDY CENTRAL. this show is designed to point out the absurd. not to mention that the daily show is skewed to the left about as much as FOX is skewed to the right ...it's no secret that Stewart and his writing staff lean leftward. crazies are on both sides. they always have been. pointing to a minority of people in a group that say something dumb and trying to make the entire group out to be stupid never works. its a pathetic attempt from the far left to distract from the real issues . the issues that the vast majority of the the tea party movement understands. i could be wrong. Maybe there are NO stupid people on the left. nobody that would want to do anything like sterilization as a from of weeding out the undesired
people.
then i will start call obama what he is: communist. because calling him "president" would be mocking the US constitution.
if you agree with the tea party movement or not, it is nothing short of childish and petty to use the language of a fifth grader to mock them.
phobicsquirrel:
but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power
its funny how every time you see an interview with someone in the tea party movement they are speaking of individual rights, and high taxes, or other issues. the only time that RACE is involved is when someone on the LEFT is trying to pull an ad hominem attack to distract from the REAL issues.
phobicsquirrel:
They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life.
they are. that institution is the government. the government has been doing it for decades. thats what government is good at... violating the rights of the individual.
phobicsquirrel:
They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read.
you believe everything the left media tells you dont you?
phobicsquirrel:
Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution.
all i have to say is: "Navy corps" not "Navy corpse" ... from the commander in chief for **** sake...
phobicsquirrel:
These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning,
and Obama cant seem use simple reasoning to understand that his health care policy will result in poor coverage that costs more all while violating not only the constitution but the rights of individuals everywhere.
phobicsquirrel:
For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap.
for some reason calling him a Communist is a bad thing, well tough crap.
he is.
You call it laughable, but look up the quote from Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, saying that two of her favorite political philosophers are Mao Tse Tung, and Mother Teresa. Look at the people President Obama has surrounded himself with. Major Marxist philosophers from the past 40+ years in our nation. Do a little research on Van Jones, Jerimiah Write, his new Spiritual advisor Rev. Wallis, or Andy Stern, head of the SEIU. ALL MARXISTS... It's pretty easy to see the structure he is trying to build at the top.
then i will start call obama what he is: communist. because calling him "president" would be mocking the US constitution.
if you agree with the tea party movement or not, it is nothing short of childish and petty to use the language of a fifth grader to mock them.
phobicsquirrel:
but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power
its funny how every time you see an interview with someone in the tea party movement they are speaking of individual rights, and high taxes, or other issues. the only time that RACE is involved is when someone on the LEFT is trying to pull an ad hominem attack to distract from the REAL issues.
phobicsquirrel:
They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life.
they are. that institution is the government. the government has been doing it for decades. thats what government is good at... violating the rights of the individual.
phobicsquirrel:
They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read.
you believe everything the left media tells you dont you?
phobicsquirrel:
Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution.
all i have to say is: "Navy corps" not "Navy corpse" ... from the commander in chief for **** sake...
phobicsquirrel:
These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning,
and Obama cant seem use simple reasoning to understand that his health care policy will result in poor coverage that costs more all while violating not only the constitution but the rights of individuals everywhere.
phobicsquirrel:
For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap.
for some reason calling him a Communist is a bad thing, well tough crap.
he is.
You call it laughable, but look up the quote from Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, saying that two of her favorite political philosophers are Mao Tse Tung, and Mother Teresa. Look at the people President Obama has surrounded himself with. Major Marxist philosophers from the past 40+ years in our nation. Do a little research on Van Jones, Jerimiah Write, his new Spiritual advisor Rev. Wallis, or Andy Stern, head of the SEIU. ALL MARXISTS... It's pretty easy to see the structure he is trying to build at the top.
I am not going to get involved here any more then to point out something.
Kuzi, Puro and some others here always use the words communist and socialist as a label for something bad. These are no more then political system or society systems, just like democracy.
Using these "Buzz words" to label something in this way is so typical of people who would rather use scare tactics, and inuendo, rather then to discuss soemthing rationally.
If there is ANYONE out there who thinks that our present systems in N America are DEMOCRACTIC, then brother you have a LOT of reading to do. Democracy is a broken political system the same as the others.
To me, the funniest things here is that people are really argueing over who, or what political master they prefer to reign over them. Open your eye's people, all these are nothing more then control mechanisms, and our present system in N. America would be much more accurately identified as Democratic Dictatorship. Yes we get to choose who will be ultimately be in charge of our day to day lives. But can anyone honestly say that the system is set up in a way (other then for appearances, that is) which truely gives the people what they want, or works for the betterment of the people as a whole? We all know Democracy is as corrupt or broken in it's present form as any other political / social system out there. Comparing our broken system to someone else's broken system, seems to me to be a lot like pissing into the wind.
I am not going to get involved here any more then to point out something.
Kuzi, Puro and some others here always use the words communist and socialist as a label for something bad.
because every society that has been communist has been violent, poor, and controlling. point to one that isnt.
laker1963:
Using these "Buzz words" to label something in this way is so typical of people who would rather use scare tactics, and inuendo, rather then to discuss soemthing rationally.
again, see above comment. its not like the left doesnt use scare tactics. what i am discussing IS the issue. what you are doing is trying to discredit my arguments by saying they are scare tactics rather than proving me wrong. Mainly because you cant. communism has a long history of being repressive. when we have a president who seems to agree with communist/socialist ideals (given the mass of evidence listed many times before) and wants to advance them, i have every right to be alarmed.
laker1963:
If there is ANYONE out there who thinks that our present systems in N America are DEMOCRACTIC, then brother you have a LOT of reading to do. Democracy is a broken political system the same as the others.
this is true.
The US was never set up to be a democracy. a democracy has a hard time protecting the rights of the individual when that individual is in the minority. the US was set up as a Republic. a republic will better support the rights of the individual because it is governed by rule of law, not just a simple majority. unfortunately, as laker points out, the US government is hardly even this anymore. it is getting further away from protecting the rights of the individual and closer to oppression every day.
laker1963:
To me, the funniest things here is that people are really argueing over who, or what political master they prefer to reign over them. Open your eye's people, all these are nothing more then control mechanisms, and our present system in N. America would be much more accurately identified as Democratic Dictatorship. Yes we get to choose who will be ultimately be in charge of our day to day lives. But can anyone honestly say that the system is set up in a way (other then for appearances, that is) which truely gives the people what they want, or works for the betterment of the people as a whole? We all know Democracy is as corrupt or broken in it's present form as any other political / social system out there. Comparing our broken system to someone else's broken system, seems to me to be a lot like pissing into the wind.
this is part of the reason why i am a libertarian. in my view the governments ONLY job is to uphold the rights of the individual. too bad there are many people out there that believe that the government should provide everything for people instead of people depending on themselves.
I am not going to get involved here any more then to point out something.
Kuzi, Puro and some others here always use the words communist and socialist as a label for something bad.
because every society that has been communist has been violent, poor, and controlling. point to one that isnt.
There really isn't any reason to do this Kuzi. Are you saying there are no starving people in N. America? Are there no violent acts carried out everyday by both people in general and the authorities? Didn't know that we in N. America were all rich, hmmmm. All these things occur in our society as well. In our case, a LOT of the injustices carried out against society is done by corporations, but that is allowed to happen by our political system, so... 6 of one, half dozen of another.
laker1963:
Using these "Buzz words" to label something in this way is so typical of people who would rather use scare tactics, and inuendo, rather then to discuss soemthing rationally.
again, see above comment. its not like the left doesnt use scare tactics. what i am discussing IS the issue. what you are doing is trying to discredit my arguments by saying they are scare tactics rather than proving me wrong. Mainly because you cant. communism has a long history of being repressive. when we have a president who seems to agree with communist/socialist ideals (given the mass of evidence listed many times before) and wants to advance them, i have every right to be alarmed.
This is ALL nothing more then YOUR opinion. Thanks for it tho. Communism and Democracy both have long and violent history Kuzi. We could discuss the Democratic way that N. Americans got a foot hold in South America. Democracy has been abused and used in ways never intended by the general populace of N. America, many times in a VERY violent manner.
laker1963:
If there is ANYONE out there who thinks that our present systems in N America are DEMOCRACTIC, then brother you have a LOT of reading to do. Democracy is a broken political system the same as the others.
this is true.
The US was never set up to be a democracy. a democracy has a hard time protecting the rights of the individual when that individual is in the minority. the US was set up as a Republic. a republic will better support the rights of the individual because it is governed by rule of law, not just a simple majority. unfortunately, as laker points out, the US government is hardly even this anymore. it is getting further away from protecting the rights of the individual and closer to oppression every day.
This was what I was pointing out. I did not want to get positioned in this discussion as defending Communism or even Socialism in favor of Democracy. Just trying to point out that all these "systems" have become little more then window dressing for what is really going on behind the scenes. I am not a conspiracy believer, but people do need to wake up and realize what is going on , or we risk becoming what I already term our political system in North America... Democratic Dictatorship's. This to me is worse, because it is insideous, in that the people are told the system is one thing, while in fact it works in a completely different manner. Like a LOT of things in our society, perception is more important then reality.
laker1963:
To me, the funniest things here is that people are really argueing over who, or what political master they prefer to reign over them. Open your eye's people, all these are nothing more then control mechanisms, and our present system in N. America would be much more accurately identified as Democratic Dictatorship. Yes we get to choose who will be ultimately be in charge of our day to day lives. But can anyone honestly say that the system is set up in a way (other then for appearances, that is) which truely gives the people what they want, or works for the betterment of the people as a whole? We all know Democracy is as corrupt or broken in it's present form as any other political / social system out there. Comparing our broken system to someone else's broken system, seems to me to be a lot like pissing into the wind.
this is part of the reason why i am a libertarian. in my view the governments ONLY job is to uphold the rights of the individual. too bad there are many people out there that believe that the government should provide everything for people instead of people depending on themselves.
This bugs me, Kuzi. You always come back to this, but in your view, you would give the very same rights and control that you want to wrestle away from the Government and give it right to the corporations. I know you will say , no, not the corporations, but to the people. Problem with that arguement is that our system is already being controlled in many ways, by Corporate America, and it hasn't been working out too great for a majority of people in North America, just the CEO's who can earn millions in bonus money for doing a good job, while trying to force workers to work for as little as possible in order to bring the greatest return to the Corporation. This is a great thing if you are a CEO or a Corporation... but of course most of us are neither.
if the government lived up to their original intention (upholding the rights of the individual) then the corporations would not control the government. instead, the government is corrupt. it accepts bribes. I am against government/corporate entanglement not against corporations running their companies how they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the reason why i am agains entanglement is because it causes violations of rights. at this point, the government should prevent this. but they are not. the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better. ... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
There really isn't any reason to do this Kuzi. Are you saying there are no starving people in N. America? Are there no violent acts carried out everyday by both people in general and the authorities? Didn't know that we in N. America were all rich, hmmmm. All these things occur in our society as well. In our case, a LOT of the injustices carried out against society is done by corporations, but that is allowed to happen by our political system, so... 6 of one, half dozen of another.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
laker1963:
Democracy has been abused and used in ways never intended by the general populace of N. America, many times in a VERY violent manner.
communism on the other hand was DESIGNED to be repressive. at least the US' representative republic was meant to bring about individual rights.
if the government lived up to their original intention (upholding the rights of the individual) then the corporations would not control the government. instead, the government is corrupt. it accepts bribes. I am against government/corporate entanglement not against corporations running their companies how they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the reason why i am agains entanglement is because it causes violations of rights. at this point, the government should prevent this. but they are not.
The reason for that is that the system has gone so far down that road that it can't take back that kind of power as it is already entrenched in the system. The fact that Corporations will even be given the right to vote, is to me a clear indicator of this.
the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
I totally agree Kuzi. However if the government were to try to regulate industry for the very purpose you just mentioned you argue that they are hand cuffing Corporations and they have no right to do that either. Regulations are about protecting people from otherwise dishonest companies and practices, however you see regulation as a hamper to businesses and their rights. How would YOU reconcile this apparent conflicting view point?
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better. ... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
Ummmm, Kuzi, what you except as compensastion for your work efforts are your business. If you feel fulfilled and satisfied with the way you are treated GREAT, and very fortunate for you. How tho, do you carry forward your opinions and pin them to Society as a whole? Just cause you are happy and don't feel you deserve more for your efforts is fine, but surely doesn't follow for everyone. I prefer to look at the equations as follows, Corporations do NOT provide jobs for people out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead people provide skills and labor, which allows the Corporation to make VAST amounts of money, by utilizing these skill sets to produce a product or service and sell it to... you guessed it the people. People are always the underpinning of a society. Corporations... not so much.
Ummmm, Kuzi, what you except as compensastion for your work efforts are your business. If you feel fulfilled and satisfied with the way you are treated GREAT, and very fortunate for you. How tho, do you carry forward your opinions and pin them to Society as a whole? Just cause you are happy and don't feel you deserve more for your efforts is fine, but surely doesn't follow for everyone.
i agree with that statement. however, my point wasnt so much that im happy and therefore everyone should be, but more of: people can change their situation if they feel they are not getting compensated properly
laker1963:
I prefer to look at the equations as follows, Corporations do NOT provide jobs for people out of the goodness of their hearts.
no company, large or small hires people out of the goodness of their hearts. they hire people becasue they need help to create more goods.
laker1963:
Instead people provide skills and labor
and get compensated for it at a level that they accept. if they do not accept this level they have every right to get a job elsewhere that will hire them. if the skills they poses are in high demand they can get more compensation. if any joe can do it, they will probably make less.
laker1963:
which allows the Corporation to make VAST amounts of money, by utilizing these skill sets to produce a product or service and sell it to... you guessed it the people. People are always the underpinning of a society. Corporations... not so much.
they are making a lot of money... but they are doing it while providing those who work for them a decent quality of life, and products for the rest of society that are in demand. i see no problem with this so long as they are not violating the rights of the individual.
if the government lived up to their original intention (upholding the rights of the individual) then the corporations would not control the government. instead, the government is corrupt. it accepts bribes. I am against government/corporate entanglement not against corporations running their companies how they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the reason why i am agains entanglement is because it causes violations of rights. at this point, the government should prevent this. but they are not.
The reason for that is that the system has gone so far down that road that it can't take back that kind of power as it is already entrenched in the system. The fact that Corporations will even be give3n the right to vote, is to me a clear indicator of this.
the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
I totally agree Kuzi. However if the government were to try to regulate industry for the very purpose you just mentioned you argue that they are hand cuffing Corporations and they have no right to do that either. Regulations are about protecting people from otherwise dishonest companies and practices, however you see regulation as a hamper to businesses and their rights. How would YOU reconcile this apparent conflicting view point?
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better. ... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
Ummmm, Kuzi, what you except as compensastion for your work efforts are your business. If you feel fulfilled and satisfied with the way you are treated GREAT, and very fortunate for you. How tho, do you carry forward your opinions and pin them to Society as a whole? Just cause you are happy and don't feel you deserve more for your efforts is fine, but surely doesn't follow for everyone. I prefer to look at the equations as follows, Corporations do NOT provide jobs for people out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead people provide skills and labor, which allows the Corporation to make VAST amounts of money, by utilizing these skill sets to produce a product or service and sell it to... you guessed it the people. People are always the underpinning of a society. Corporations... not so much.
Just wanted to point out that a corporation has no right to vote. The CEO can cast his vote, just like everyone else in the company, but the corporation as an entity has no vote in any way.
There really isn't any reason to do this Kuzi. Are you saying there are no starving people in N. America? Are there no violent acts carried out everyday by both people in general and the authorities? Didn't know that we in N. America were all rich, hmmmm. All these things occur in our society as well. In our case, a LOT of the injustices carried out against society is done by corporations, but that is allowed to happen by our political system, so... 6 of one, half dozen of another.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
This is an outrageous statement Kuzi! The world view is wrong, and the view of Kuzi shall prevail? How Arrogant can you get? Have you not ever seen a homeless person? People who do not get medical proceedures done because of lack of funds to pay for it, if they could find a hospital to take them without insurance in the first place. You seem to buy into these types of arguements because they play into your world view and allow you to go thru life without feeling guilty. Many on the political right seem to do so.
laker1963:
Democracy has been abused and used in ways never intended by the general populace of N. America, many times in a VERY violent manner.
communism on the other hand was DESIGNED to be repressive. at least the US' representative republic was meant to bring about individual rights.
Again your opinion, and not very well thought out for you. Political systems are control mechanism, no more no less. Large populations are a VERY scary thing for people in power, and building large and mighty protective forces, both domestic and for export fighting is a huge part of any system, whether Democratic or Socialist / Communist. Communism is no more violent or oppressive then Democracy. They are both out to acheive the same thing...population control. It is easy to criticise a system different from your own, doesen't make it true however. I deal in reality, NOT perception, my eyes are wide open, and I have no problem criticising our systems. This is not being un-patriotic in any way. When we stop fighting for our rights (forget about other peoples systems for a minute) and to make our system work for the people, we ultimately lose. When that happens, you can call the system anything you like, cause it won't matter. I am just pointing out that while we love to hold up our ways for all to admire, we don't like to discuss our blemishes. But they are there non the less.
. Communism is no more violent or oppressive then Democracy. They are both out to acheive the same thing...population control.
you keep talking of a Democracy. however, The US was set up as a REPUBLIC. this is very different than a Democracy. Our republic was set up to uphold the rights of the individual. this is by nature less repressive than a communist or fascist society because those types of government regulate people into submission. in the a republic where the only goal of the government is to uphold the rights of the individual every person can do what they want, run their lives as they see fit as long as they dont violate the rights of others. you are right though, a Democracy will be repressive to the minority of any topic.
laker1963:
It is easy to criticise a system different from your own, doesen't make it true however.
i am criticizing my own political system here.
laker1963:
I have no problem criticising our systems. This is not being un-patriotic in any way. When we stop fighting for our rights (forget about other peoples systems for a minute) and to make our system work for the people, we ultimately lose. When that happens, you can call the system anything you like, cause it won't matter.
i agree
laker1963:
I am just pointing out that while we love to hold up our ways for all to admire, we don't like to discuss our blemishes. But they are there non the less.
i am not holding up our ways. im saying that the US government is corrupt and edging closer and closer to a Communist/Fascist/Repressive government. it is not living up to the ideals that it was intended to stand for.
if the government lived up to their original intention (upholding the rights of the individual) then the corporations would not control the government. instead, the government is corrupt. it accepts bribes. I am against government/corporate entanglement not against corporations running their companies how they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the reason why i am agains entanglement is because it causes violations of rights. at this point, the government should prevent this. but they are not.
The reason for that is that the system has gone so far down that road that it can't take back that kind of power as it is already entrenched in the system. The fact that Corporations will even be give3n the right to vote, is to me a clear indicator of this.
the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
I totally agree Kuzi. However if the government were to try to regulate industry for the very purpose you just mentioned you argue that they are hand cuffing Corporations and they have no right to do that either. Regulations are about protecting people from otherwise dishonest companies and practices, however you see regulation as a hamper to businesses and their rights. How would YOU reconcile this apparent conflicting view point?
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better. ... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
Ummmm, Kuzi, what you except as compensastion for your work efforts are your business. If you feel fulfilled and satisfied with the way you are treated GREAT, and very fortunate for you. How tho, do you carry forward your opinions and pin them to Society as a whole? Just cause you are happy and don't feel you deserve more for your efforts is fine, but surely doesn't follow for everyone. I prefer to look at the equations as follows, Corporations do NOT provide jobs for people out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead people provide skills and labor, which allows the Corporation to make VAST amounts of money, by utilizing these skill sets to produce a product or service and sell it to... you guessed it the people. People are always the underpinning of a society. Corporations... not so much.
Just wanted to point out that a corporation has no right to vote. The CEO can cast his vote, just like everyone else in the company, but the corporation as an entity has no vote in any way.
My bad. I thought you guys were discussing this very issue last week. The right of the corporation to become involved in elections. Now I see it was a funding thing not a voting thing, which is probably worse. Unlimited funding provided to whichever Politician or Political Party will cater to your wants and desires. Yeah, now that right there is VERY democratic. Let the people with the money influence the elections on a level which is NOT available to everyone. That sounds fair and not at all one sided or stacked. C'mon seriously? LMAO
Just wanted to point out that a corporation has no right to vote. The CEO can cast his vote, just like everyone else in the company, but the corporation as an entity has no vote in any way.
this is true. the votes in congress are a bit different. this is where the entanglement comes in. for all of you that are touting this heath care bill as "putting insurance companies in their place" here is some food for thought... the insurance agencies got EXACTLY what they wanted: a mandate by he government to buy their product without a public option. this is an example of the government not protecting the rights of the individual (to spend their money as they see fit provided it does not violate the rights of others) from corporations. again this does not make "corporations" as a general entity evil, it means the government is corrupt and is not living up to its intended purpose of upholding the rights of the individual.
if the government lived up to their original intention (upholding the rights of the individual) then the corporations would not control the government. instead, the government is corrupt. it accepts bribes. I am against government/corporate entanglement not against corporations running their companies how they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the reason why i am agains entanglement is because it causes violations of rights. at this point, the government should prevent this. but they are not.
The reason for that is that the system has gone so far down that road that it can't take back that kind of power as it is already entrenched in the system. The fact that Corporations will even be give3n the right to vote, is to me a clear indicator of this.
the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
I totally agree Kuzi. However if the government were to try to regulate industry for the very purpose you just mentioned you argue that they are hand cuffing Corporations and they have no right to do that either. Regulations are about protecting people from otherwise dishonest companies and practices, however you see regulation as a hamper to businesses and their rights. How would YOU reconcile this apparent conflicting view point?
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better. ... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
Ummmm, Kuzi, what you except as compensastion for your work efforts are your business. If you feel fulfilled and satisfied with the way you are treated GREAT, and very fortunate for you. How tho, do you carry forward your opinions and pin them to Society as a whole? Just cause you are happy and don't feel you deserve more for your efforts is fine, but surely doesn't follow for everyone. I prefer to look at the equations as follows, Corporations do NOT provide jobs for people out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead people provide skills and labor, which allows the Corporation to make VAST amounts of money, by utilizing these skill sets to produce a product or service and sell it to... you guessed it the people. People are always the underpinning of a society. Corporations... not so much.
Just wanted to point out that a corporation has no right to vote. The CEO can cast his vote, just like everyone else in the company, but the corporation as an entity has no vote in any way.
My bad. I thought you guys were discussing this very issue last week. The right of the corporation to become involved in elections. Now I see it was a funding thing not a voting thing, which is probably worse. Unlimited funding provided to whichever Politician or Political Party will cater to your wants and desires. Yeah, now that right there is VERY democratic. Let the people with the money influence the elections on a level which is NOT available to everyone. That sounds fair and not at all one sided or stacked. C'mon seriously? LMAO
And STILL not correct. The ruling was not about donating to or funding a campaign, it said that Corporations could pay for advertising in support of any political belief or candidate. I know in Canada free speech isn't as much a beloved right as it is here in America due to the hate speech laws that restrict free speech, but to say corporations can't purchase advertising to voice opinions is a huge violation of our Constitution and was struck down by the Supreme Court because of this.
"At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law. Section 203 of the law barred corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate in a way that Federal Election Commission officials might view as electioneering. The ban applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days before a general election."
. Communism is no more violent or oppressive then Democracy. They are both out to acheive the same thing...population control.
you keep talking of a Democracy. however, The US was set up as a REPUBLIC. this is very different than a Democracy. Our republic was set up to uphold the rights of the individual. this is by nature less repressive than a communist or fascist society because those types of government regulate people into submission. in the a republic where the only goal of the government is to uphold the rights of the individual every person can do what they want, run their lives as they see fit as long as they dont violate the rights of others. you are right though, a Democracy will be repressive to the minority of any topic.
So the US is NOT a Democratic country? Hmmmm. You are talking semantics here Kuzi. Call it what you like, it works on Democratic pricipals, and therefore what I stated stands.
laker1963:
It is easy to criticise a system different from your own, doesen't make it true however.
i am criticizing my own political system here.
No you were criticising Obama and the way he is taking the US down the road to Communism or Socialism in YOUR opinion. You were criticising a man not a system.
laker1963:
I have no problem criticising our systems. This is not being un-patriotic in any way. When we stop fighting for our rights (forget about other peoples systems for a minute) and to make our system work for the people, we ultimately lose. When that happens, you can call the system anything you like, cause it won't matter.
i agree
laker1963:
I am just pointing out that while we love to hold up our ways for all to admire, we don't like to discuss our blemishes. But they are there non the less.
i am not holding up our ways. im saying that the US government is corrupt and edging closer and closer to a Communist/Fascist/Repressive government. it is not living up to the ideals that it was intended to stand for.
And prior to Obama everything was OK? Are you serious? ROFLMFAOPeoples biggest problem is that they identify with their political leader too much. If you like the present leader he can do no real wrong, and anything he does do, that is not is strict line with your own opinions can be justified in some way. While if the present leader is from the "other side" then he can do NOTHING right. Criticisms , no matter how rediculous take on an air of truth. We all like to think we are above political pettiness, but guess what, we aren't.Not even you Kuzi
And prior to Obama everything was OK? Are you serious? ROFLMFAOPeoples biggest problem is that they identify with their political leader too much.
no. i never said that. dont put words in my mouth. it has taken about 200 years to get to this point in our political system.
governments in general (republican, democrat, whig, green party, tea part, coffee party, or whatever party is in control) have a way of violating rights. Obama is continuing this trend.
i would appreciate an apology for drawing conclusions that were not there and then laughing at me for it.
laker1963:
If you like the present leader he can do no real wrong, and anything he does do, that is not is strict line with your own opinions can be justified in soeme way. While if the present leader is from the "other side" then he can do NOTHING right. Criticisms , no matter how rediculous take on an air of truth.
So the US is NOT a Democratic country? Hmmmm. You are talking semantics here Kuzi. Call it what you like, it works on Democratic pricipals, and therefore what I stated stands.
no it is NOT a democracy. It is supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic. democracy means Majority rule. a republic is based off of rule of law. there is a big difference. that distinction is very important to this discussion.
And STILL not correct. The ruling was not about donating to or funding a campaign, it said that Corporations could pay for advertising in support of any political belief or candidate. I know in Canada free speech isn't as much a beloved right as it is here in America due to the hate speech laws that restrict free speech, but to say corporations can't purchase advertising to voice opinions is a huge violation of our Constitution and was struck down by the Supreme Court because of this.
That bit about free speech in Canada is a bit of a low blow Puro, and reeks of that stupid stupid woman , (aren't you guy's embarrassed) who is presently here spouting off hate and intolerance under the guise of free speech.
Funny you should mention Canada's restrictions on Free Speech. Last week we were talking here on the forums about it being illegal (even in the US) for someone to go into a theatre and yell FIRE !!! How come?, because of reasonable limits and the rights of the many supercedding the rights of the individual. So here in Canada, we have extended those restrictions in ways which prevent someone from openly (in books and such) spouting off HATE speech, or things like claiming the Holocaust being a fabrication. These are limits on free speech, and there are some similar ones in the US. We may have more, or have better defined restrictions, but I think your intention of casting Canada as less of an upholder of Free Speech then the US, is wrong and not helpful to this discussion.
BTW, Puro, notice that I try to refer to N. America (However US is faster to type and I don't single out the States? Maybe you take what I write too personally bro'. I am criticizing Canada and our ways to the very same degree as the US, so please let's not get distracted by finger pointing. I am NOT dissing the USA. OK?
So the US is NOT a Democratic country? Hmmmm. You are talking semantics here Kuzi. Call it what you like, it works on Democratic pricipals, and therefore what I stated stands.
no it is NOT a democracy. It is supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic. democracy means Majority rule. a republic is based off of rule of law. there is a big difference. that distinction is very important to this discussion.
I didn't say it was A DEMOCRACY. I asked if it was not a DEMOCRATIC country? In other words do your politics follow DEMOCRATIC principals? It is not I who is splitting hairs here Kuzi.
And STILL not correct. The ruling was not about donating to or funding a campaign, it said that Corporations could pay for advertising in support of any political belief or candidate. I know in Canada free speech isn't as much a beloved right as it is here in America due to the hate speech laws that restrict free speech, but to say corporations can't purchase advertising to voice opinions is a huge violation of our Constitution and was struck down by the Supreme Court because of this.
That bit about free speech in Canada is a bit of a low blow Puro, and reeks of that stupid stupid woman , (aren't you guy's embarrassed) who is presently here spouting off hate and intolerance under the guise of free speech.
Funny you should mention Canada's restrictions on Free Speech. Last week we were talking here on the forums about it being illegal (even in the US) for someone to go into a theatre and yell FIRE !!! How come?, because of reasonable limits and the rights of the many supercedding the rights of the individual. So here in Canada, we have extended those restrictions in ways which prevent someone from openly (in books and such) spouting off HATE speech, or things like claiming the Holocaust being a fabrication. These are limits on free speech, and there are some similar ones in the US. We may have more, or have better defined restrictions, but I think your intention of casting Canada as less of an upholder of Free Speech then the US, is wrong and not helpful to this discussion.
BTW, Puro, notice that I try to refer to N. America (However US is faster to type and I don't single out the States? Maybe you take what I write too personally bro'. I am criticizing Canada and our ways to the very same degree as the US, so please let's not get distracted by finger pointing. I am NOT dissing the USA. OK?
I actually wasn't taking a shot at Canada, it's your country and the government has the right to run it any way they want. Just pointing out that free speech is limited. How does someone speaking about the holocaust and saying it didn't happen really endanger anyone or violate anyone's rights? It doesn't. Are these people loons? DAMN RIGHT! But here in America we have the right to be as big a loon as we want without big brother stepping in and slapping us on the hand. Free speech has been limited here in the past as well, but thankfully it has been shot down. Look back around the time of World War I in America's history and there was a lot of this going on. I'm not saying we are perfect and your system is flawed, just saying we have different founding principles.
Comments
Right out of the playbook of Joseph Stalin...Every liberals hero.
Communisma 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.
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.
socialisma 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.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. im laughable but, you want to promote sterilization as a from of weeding out the dumb people. HA! this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life. oh he isnt? Obama is looking to have single payer health care plan. this IS a socialist/Communist by nature and by the definitions above. (provided by dictionary.com)
how about the growing control over the banking industry with tarp? is that not a collective ownership via taxpayers? what about the stimulus plan where we expanded welfare (a social system), or how about the government running GM? is that not a collective ownership via taxpayers?
how about the concept of redistribution of wealth ? this concept of taking from the rich and distributing it for "economic justice" is very communist.
please tell me how this is not communist.
then again, maybe you are right. maybe he believes more in Faschism (A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls)
the severe Banking regulations and housing regulations, the new medical insurance regulations, the fact that we have a pay czar, and the fact that every type of business in the us is regulated above and beyond what it should be, all point to the Fascist theory
maybe he is just for power of the Federal Government, taking parts from other styles and using them where it fits best in his mind. Fascist, socialist, or Communist, it all boils down to overbearing government regulation and control over our lives. more than any corporation has or could do. way to get your news from COMEDY CENTRAL. this show is designed to point out the absurd. not to mention that the daily show is skewed to the left about as much as FOX is skewed to the right ...it's no secret that Stewart and his writing staff lean leftward.
crazies are on both sides. they always have been. pointing to a minority of people in a group that say something dumb and trying to make the entire group out to be stupid never works. its a pathetic attempt from the far left to distract from the real issues . the issues that the vast majority of the the tea party movement understands.
i could be wrong. Maybe there are NO stupid people on the left. nobody that would want to do anything like sterilization as a from of weeding out the undesired people.
....communism killed 110,000,000 People world wide and all i got was this lousy Che Shirt
Kuzi, Puro and some others here always use the words communist and socialist as a label for something bad. These are no more then political system or society systems, just like democracy.
Using these "Buzz words" to label something in this way is so typical of people who would rather use scare tactics, and inuendo, rather then to discuss soemthing rationally.
If there is ANYONE out there who thinks that our present systems in N America are DEMOCRACTIC, then brother you have a LOT of reading to do. Democracy is a broken political system the same as the others.
To me, the funniest things here is that people are really argueing over who, or what political master they prefer to reign over them. Open your eye's people, all these are nothing more then control mechanisms, and our present system in N. America would be much more accurately identified as Democratic Dictatorship. Yes we get to choose who will be ultimately be in charge of our day to day lives. But can anyone honestly say that the system is set up in a way (other then for appearances, that is) which truely gives the people what they want, or works for the betterment of the people as a whole? We all know Democracy is as corrupt or broken in it's present form as any other political / social system out there. Comparing our broken system to someone else's broken system, seems to me to be a lot like pissing into the wind.
its not like the left doesnt use scare tactics. what i am discussing IS the issue. what you are doing is trying to discredit my arguments by saying they are scare tactics rather than proving me wrong. Mainly because you cant. communism has a long history of being repressive. when we have a president who seems to agree with communist/socialist ideals (given the mass of evidence listed many times before) and wants to advance them, i have every right to be alarmed. this is true.
The US was never set up to be a democracy. a democracy has a hard time protecting the rights of the individual when that individual is in the minority. the US was set up as a Republic. a republic will better support the rights of the individual because it is governed by rule of law, not just a simple majority.
unfortunately, as laker points out, the US government is hardly even this anymore. it is getting further away from protecting the rights of the individual and closer to oppression every day.
this is part of the reason why i am a libertarian. in my view the governments ONLY job is to uphold the rights of the individual. too bad there are many people out there that believe that the government should provide everything for people instead of people depending on themselves.
the corporation as a generic entity is not evil. when a corporation turns to "the dark side" the government lets it. thats a problem. the solution, however, is not a government take over. the solution is for the government to live up to their original intention: upholding the rights of the indiidual.
i work for a corporation. my father worked for a corporation. neither of us felt like they are trying to get me to work for less. if i felt my job was trying to pay me to little, i would go to another job where i could get paid more. in fact, when i did work for a small business, i was not getting paid what i was worth. i had to quit and go somewhere that did pay me what i deserve. that was a corporation. the benefits were better as well.
working for a corporation has made my life better.
... and im damn near the bottom of the barrel.
but they are doing it while providing those who work for them a decent quality of life, and products for the rest of society that are in demand. i see no problem with this so long as they are not violating the rights of the individual.
this is where the entanglement comes in.
for all of you that are touting this heath care bill as "putting insurance companies in their place" here is some food for thought...
the insurance agencies got EXACTLY what they wanted:
a mandate by he government to buy their product without a public option.
this is an example of the government not protecting the rights of the individual (to spend their money as they see fit provided it does not violate the rights of others) from corporations.
again this does not make "corporations" as a general entity evil, it means the government is corrupt and is not living up to its intended purpose of upholding the rights of the individual.
"At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law. Section 203 of the law barred corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate in a way that Federal Election Commission officials might view as electioneering. The ban applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days before a general election."
And prior to Obama everything was OK? Are you serious? ROFLMFAOPeoples biggest problem is that they identify with their political leader too much. If you like the present leader he can do no real wrong, and anything he does do, that is not is strict line with your own opinions can be justified in some way. While if the present leader is from the "other side" then he can do NOTHING right. Criticisms , no matter how rediculous take on an air of truth. We all like to think we are above political pettiness, but guess what, we aren't.Not even you Kuzi
governments in general (republican, democrat, whig, green party, tea part, coffee party, or whatever party is in control) have a way of violating rights. Obama is continuing this trend.
i would appreciate an apology for drawing conclusions that were not there and then laughing at me for it.
welcome to the definition of "politics"
democracy means Majority rule.
a republic is based off of rule of law. there is a big difference. that distinction is very important to this discussion.
That bit about free speech in Canada is a bit of a low blow Puro, and reeks of that stupid stupid woman , (aren't you guy's embarrassed) who is presently here spouting off hate and intolerance under the guise of free speech.
Funny you should mention Canada's restrictions on Free Speech. Last week we were talking here on the forums about it being illegal (even in the US) for someone to go into a theatre and yell FIRE !!! How come?, because of reasonable limits and the rights of the many supercedding the rights of the individual. So here in Canada, we have extended those restrictions in ways which prevent someone from openly (in books and such) spouting off HATE speech, or things like claiming the Holocaust being a fabrication. These are limits on free speech, and there are some similar ones in the US. We may have more, or have better defined restrictions, but I think your intention of casting Canada as less of an upholder of Free Speech then the US, is wrong and not helpful to this discussion.
BTW, Puro, notice that I try to refer to N. America (However US is faster to type