About Usa! Usa! Usa!... Page 14
|August 3rd, 2006||#131|
| || |
My point is simple. How can the broad mass vote Republican? A lot of poor obviously did. People actually voted for a party that turns the screw on them. When do we ever choose to ally ourselves with people who work against us? Never. That is not normal behaviour. Why then politically? This is either a sign of mass retardation or of a sadomasochistic temperament. Maybe my other point is right: American democracy is a fraud. The people are so brainwashed that they cannot understand the most basic of issues. There must be a reason why the average schools are as poor as they are. The elite understand the benefits of keeping the masses dumb.
Maybe I am expecting too much of a nation that believes the term "worker" or "working class" is an insult. Or, that the common folk cannot rule. Why not just dispense with the name democracy and become the "United Starbucks of America"? Democracy is in any case much more than just voting. Democracy means rule BY the people FOR the people. It is not rule BY two parties FOR a small elite. A real democracy can only mean the rule of the working class. Why? Because they are the people. You do not swear allegiance to the Republican/Democratic authoritarian oligarchy.
Hey, oligarchy...gotta love it.
Last edited by Ollie Garchy; August 3rd, 2006 at 22:36..
|August 3rd, 2006||#132|
| || |
Oh ... now I get it OG.
You are advocating a Socialist State (or) Communist form of government.
No wonder you are so negative about the United States. You would have us form a government where "the wealth is re-distributed" and there would NOT be a "free enterprise business system".
Yes ... there is a group of citizens that live below the poverty line ... however ... the living standard is higher for them, than for those poor that must survive under a socialist government in any other corner of the world.
And by the way, our government is not a 'Democratic" government ... it is a Representative Democracy. That means that we choose others to represent us before our House and Senate ... we DO NOT cast a personal vote on every single piece of legislation that comes before our representatives. The NEVER has been and NEVER WILL be, a form of government where that happens. At least under our form of government ... "We the People" ... are allowed to choose our own leaders ... show me where that was true for a socialist government. YOU CAN'T.
|August 3rd, 2006||#133|
| || |
Also if you go these fixed poverty lines, China has lower poverty rate than the United States. I'l pass on that thanks.
I mean weve been pretty f'up free. I mean sure theres been a few rotten apples but we havent done anything like elect somebody like I dunno.... Hitler?
Your think calling someone a cowboy is an insult, maybe your country is just as retarded.
Last edited by Rabs; August 3rd, 2006 at 23:05..
|August 4th, 2006||#135|
| || |
1. When did I mention redistribution? Redistribution already happens on a large scale. Hundreds of billions of tax dollars are put into the pockets of Boeing or other companies as part of normal government spending. All of the weapons, government buildings, roads, etc. are paid for by the people. If tax dollars paid for universal health care or subsidized housing, it would be the same thing.
2. When did I say that I was a communist? Communism tends towards one-party rule. I wrote that the people should determine their own fate. That's democracy. The people voting for a party that represented their interests is neither communism nor socialism. Here is your own constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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".
3. The US is a representative democracy? Well, who represents the American people? The Sheriff of Nottingham? Come on. The existence of tens of millions of poor people sort of undermines the idea that any representation exists at all. These people do not have a voice. If they did, simple logic dictates that they would vote for candidates who work towards improving their position. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea might call itself democratic, but this is a meaningless word in their case. The same is obviously true of the US.
4. Is the US a free-enterprise system? No. The government exists to establish rules of conduct. There are literally thousands of laws governing what we call business. Think about the antitrust or competition laws that prohibit anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. These antitrust laws protect business and particularly small business. Laws that ban unfair treatment of labour or increase worker pay would be the same thing.
The normal American aversion to anything smacking of what they call "socialism" is precisely why I wrote these posts. You guys do not understand that you already have "business socialism". That means that money flows from the people to business through taxation channels. Hence government subsidies of certain sectors like oil or agriculture. Why not subsidize programs that improve schools or the plight of the people...that is what government is for?
[Rabs...the Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933, and who are still alive, are older than 101. There ain't many of them left. Nobody of my generation or the previous generation ever voted for Hitler, so your points are meaningless.]
Last edited by Ollie Garchy; August 4th, 2006 at 08:03..
|August 4th, 2006||#136|
| || |
You do realize that ending poverty is far more difficult than funding a NASA mission, right? From the government's end funding a NASA mission is about as simple as throwing money at it. Fighting poverty on the other hand isn't so simple. If you start throwing money at the poor people you will cause inflation, prices will go up, and the poor will have more money, but they won't be any better off because everything will cost more. Besides, poverty in America is very tricky, I have lived in "poverty" all my life but I had to be told before I actually knew it. The poverty line is a dollar figure, if you earn less than that you are in poverty, plain and simple. Some parts of America don't require as much money to get by as do others. My dad moved to Kansas, a house down there that cost $60,000 would cost $250,000 here and would cost $2.3 million in California. 10 acres of land in Kansas: $7,000; South Dakota: $25,000; New York: $10.2 million. See what I am getting at? A person can live in poverty and still be quite well off in parts of America. What we call poverty in America is fabulously wealthy in 70% of the countries of this world. Let's compare.
Poverty in America
Two bedroom apartment
One 27" TV
Basic Cable (No HBO)
A $5,000 Car
Fridge stocked full of groceries
Poverty in Africa
One room hut
One well for the entire village of 10,000
No idea whether the UN aid they promised you will get to you or not because a local warlord may just take it for himself.
Now do you see why I laugh at those who say we have a genuine poverty problem here in America? There is plenty of help for those who need it, the reason why it is so hard to get said help though is because too many people would try to take advantage of welfare. Look what happened to the states that had extensive government welfare programs, the two greatest examples being the Roman Empire and more recently the Soviet Union, what happened to them? They collapsed under the weight of trying to maintain said welfare programs.
I suppose next you are going to tell me that Germany doesn't have any poor people at all, right? I reckon if the US had had someone else paying for our national defense for us we wouldn't have as many poor people either. But as it was we had to defend Western Europe so that you could poor money into your social programs.
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
Last edited by Damien435; August 4th, 2006 at 20:38..
|August 4th, 2006||#137|
| || |
I was as fair with my words as I could be. When you advocate rule by the "working class" you are espousing a socialist style of rule. This is the keynote mantra that is used to keep the working class appeased and it allows the "party" to make laws for the masses without their input or vote.
What you were in essence advocating, was the implementation of the Communist Party and their brand of socialism. "Redistribution of wealth" and lack of a "free-enterprise system" are a consequences of this form of government.
By advocating a socialist form of government, it explains why so many of your posts are anti-American
Go back and read your own posts - you will see where someone could reach that conclusion. If you really meant something else, you need to pay more attention to your choice of words. And if you did mean what you wrote ... then you ARE guilty of being in favor of a socialist form of government. That would mean that my post was right on target and NO apology would/will be forthcoming.
|August 5th, 2006||#138|
| || |
|August 5th, 2006||#139|
| || |
|How Close to Allies Were We? China and the USA.|
|India & USA military relationship|
|Will Anyone Surpass the USA in invention?|
|Can USA really win a big war?|
|The Military Defeat of Imperial USA -- an essay|