Quote:Original post by LessBread
Why then doesn't that "you" include "your government"?
It does, but it's last on the list. (And in very small print.)
Communism creeping into our future?
It does, but it's last on the list. (And in very small print.)
Quote:Original post by MSWQuote:Original post by LessBread
I have to ask if you know the difference between liberals and radicals because it appears that you do not.
But do you know the diffrence between conservatives and radicals?
No. [grin] Joking aside, your question does expose the fact that "radical" does not necessarily entail a particular ideology. Strictly speaking, a "radical" is a person who advocates reforming society at the "root" level. What that means depends on the ideology of the individual radical or the radical group that a particular radical individual identifies with the most. We also tend to use the word "radical" to describe people who advocate actions that the majority - hopefully the super majority - consider extreme, that is, beyond the boundaries of normal political behavior. This would include murder or assassination or bombings, but it need not be that extreme. On the left, "radical action" often means engaging in disruptive but non-violent action, such as scaling a building to unfurl a banner or staging a sit-in protest inside the offices of a corporation or member of Congress.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
It's not empathizing and it's not solving problems, it's sitting in self-righteous judgment, it's smugness, it's psychological projection. Take a good look at the definition of empathy. Note that at it's core it consists of "identification with". Telling others how to live their lives is not about empathy, it's about control.
It's about putting people in a mindset where they can take control themselves. The attitude of dependency strongly hinders not only people, but sometimes entire nations. We can identify with people all day long, and by doing so discover what they want and what might make their lives temporarily better, but in the long-run, it's not going to alleviate their problems.
Quote:
People concerned with outcomes are not spouting off about what others should do, they're out their doing the work rather than talking about it. They aren't out there telling the less fortunate that they are on their own, they're out there telling them that we can all do this together.
What does that even mean? Who is concerned with outcomes and who is doing something about it? Not any of our politicians, left or right. People who donate their time and resources to charitable organizations are. People who offer educational and job training services are. And the people who decide to take advantage of these services.
Quote:
That conservatives have taken up the message of "you're on your own" marks their departure from traditional American values. Have you forgotten about barn raisings? It seems that you have.
A barn raising is an example of a closely-knit community coming together, without the help of unseen people and governments, and providing a fellow member of the community with something that they will need to earn a living. This is quite different than subsidizing ever-increasing parts of a person's life and interfering with their ability to invest, as with the European system.
Quote:
The government is always already involved in wealth redistribution. Conservatives complain when the money goes to the poor, they rejoice when it goes to the rich (and that's omitting military expenditures). Having private welfare programs to provide the bulk of assistance would amount to returning to the 19th century. You're pushing reactionary nonsense that would turn the United States back into a third world nation. Now there's some irony!
Conservativism: Bringing the third world home to America's former middle class!
Again, I don't argue for the conservative position: I think the military is grossly over-funded. Although I support the idea of initiatives to promote business-friendly environments, I don't agree with the excesses and abuses of the corporate system.
Quote:
No capitalist country can ever reach full employment. That's the point.
I mean full possible employment. Are we at the minimum employment rate?
Quote:Quote:Original post by trzy
America is a nation where a lot of people have serious financial problems. For a lot of people struggling to make ends meet -- hell, maybe even most -- I'm willing to believe it's not their fault. But I suspect that for a lot of people, maybe even a majority, it's the result of misplaced priorities. Cars, houses, clothes, and restaurants that are too expensive. New iPods, cell phones, and toys.
I'm no model consumer myself so I can empathize to a large degree with these people but I don't think I want to expect the government to fix this problem without
It appears that you forgot to finish that last sentence.
I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for the choices they make. I'm saying they aren't solely responsible for many of them. To what extent should people be held responsible for their choices, when they have few good options to choose from? Where do Americans get their priorities from? Do we pick them by performing research and giving careful consideration to the matters at hand? Or do we regurgitate them, believing them to be our own, after internalizing thousands of hours of advertising? If our priorities are misplaced (and I tend to think they are), we ought to look at the false needs created by our economic system.
I'm not sure why the sentence was unfinished. What I was trying to say is that I think we're going to reach a situation as today's younger (20's, 30's, and 40's) generations in debt are going to be unable to have a comfortable retirement and will consequently push hard for government assistance. I can try to empathize with that but I think it's going to be ruinous and, because of the magnitude of change involved, will establish the precedent that government has to do something about these self-inflicted problems rather. I think Americans need to wake up to reality of the world around them and ask themselves why they aren't behaving as intelligently as people in other nations, both those on par or exceeding our standard of living, and poorer (but improving) ones.
As for advertising and false needs, I'm not sold on it. Every nation has marketers telling people what they should want. Not every nation gives in and racks up enormous personal debt.
Quote:Unless they happen to be Republican Presidents, in which case they can get away with torturing prisoners, spying on the public, lying to Congress and a host of other high crimes and misdemeanors.
I think they should have been held accountable for all these things. The "liberals" in Congress seem to be particularly unconcerned with such matters. After all, they've controlled Congress for a while and have done nothing out of petty political concerns. All talk and no action. The Republicans are at least fairly consistent in their attitudes if nothing else.
Sadly, I predict a McCain win this election.
Author
Quote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by trzy
Sadly, I predict a McCain win this election.
Not if we can help it :)
Aye. I've always been a fan of ron paul
Quote:Original post by Chris ReynoldsQuote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by trzy
Sadly, I predict a McCain win this election.
Not if we can help it :)
Aye. I've always been a fan of ron paul
Explain his rabid racist rantings please.
Quote:Original post by SilvermystQuote:Original post by Mithrandir
How come you generally never hear conservatives complaining about corporate welfare?
No Corporate Welfare.
It's funny you mention Ron Paul, considering that the majority of conservatives hate him, and even call him a liberal.
Regardless of one person who is against it, the vast majority of conservatives love corporate welfare.
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
Explain his rabid racist rantings please.
You believe Ron Paul to be a racist?
Quote:Original post by MithrandirHe should join Australian politics - our conservative (~Republican) party is called the Liberal Party...
It's funny you mention Ron Paul, considering that the majority of conservatives hate him, and even call him a liberal.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:Original post by LessBread
It's not empathizing and it's not solving problems, it's sitting in self-righteous judgment, it's smugness, it's psychological projection. Take a good look at the definition of empathy. Note that at it's core it consists of "identification with". Telling others how to live their lives is not about empathy, it's about control.
It's about putting people in a mindset where they can take control themselves. The attitude of dependency strongly hinders not only people, but sometimes entire nations. We can identify with people all day long, and by doing so discover what they want and what might make their lives temporarily better, but in the long-run, it's not going to alleviate their problems.
How do you put people in a mindset? What does putting people in a mindset mean? What does it look like? Does it look like torture? Does it look like propaganda? Does it look like intimidation? Does it look like sedation? Who is taking control of whom in this picture of putting people in a "take control" mindset? Does America need to go to boot camp? Dependency is reality long before it becomes an attitude or a state of mind. From a biological point of view every living thing on the planet exists in a dependent state. If there is a faulty attitude, it's the attitude that overlooks this fundamental fact of existence. Human beings are always already dependent. We are born dependent and live our lives in various stages of dependency. There is no escaping the connections. There is no guarantee that telling others how to live their lives will in the long run alleviate their problems.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:
People concerned with outcomes are not spouting off about what others should do, they're out their doing the work rather than talking about it. They aren't out there telling the less fortunate that they are on their own, they're out there telling them that we can all do this together.
What does that even mean? Who is concerned with outcomes and who is doing something about it? Not any of our politicians, left or right. People who donate their time and resources to charitable organizations are. People who offer educational and job training services are. And the people who decide to take advantage of these services.
I mostly agree, but I think there are some politicians doing something about it, just not enough of them.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:
That conservatives have taken up the message of "you're on your own" marks their departure from traditional American values. Have you forgotten about barn raisings? It seems that you have.
A barn raising is an example of a closely-knit community coming together, without the help of unseen people and governments, and providing a fellow member of the community with something that they will need to earn a living. This is quite different than subsidizing ever-increasing parts of a person's life and interfering with their ability to invest, as with the European system.
The principle is the same only scaled for larger populations and vastly different economies. ... and providing a fellow member of the community with something that they will need to earn a living. How interesting. How does subsidizing a person's life interfere with their ability to invest? Does subsidizing a corporation interfere with its ability to invest? Can the double standard be rationalized away?
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:
The government is always already involved in wealth redistribution. Conservatives complain when the money goes to the poor, they rejoice when it goes to the rich (and that's omitting military expenditures). Having private welfare programs to provide the bulk of assistance would amount to returning to the 19th century. You're pushing reactionary nonsense that would turn the United States back into a third world nation. Now there's some irony!
Conservativism: Bringing the third world home to America's former middle class!
Again, I don't argue for the conservative position: I think the military is grossly over-funded. Although I support the idea of initiatives to promote business-friendly environments, I don't agree with the excesses and abuses of the corporate system.
It sounded like you were arguing for the conservative position.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:
No capitalist country can ever reach full employment. That's the point.
I mean full possible employment. Are we at the minimum employment rate?
The employment rate is not a statistic that the corporate media likes to discuss. For the last 50 years or so, the figures for the US, Europe and Japan have fluctuated between 60% and 80%. The employment rate is the ratio between working adults and all adults in a given population. It's usually figured for people between the ages of 16 and 65, but those bounds could be adjusted. I think it provides a clearer picture of the economy than the unemployment rate.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:Quote:Original post by trzy
America is a nation where a lot of people have serious financial problems. For a lot of people struggling to make ends meet -- hell, maybe even most -- I'm willing to believe it's not their fault. But I suspect that for a lot of people, maybe even a majority, it's the result of misplaced priorities. Cars, houses, clothes, and restaurants that are too expensive. New iPods, cell phones, and toys.
I'm no model consumer myself so I can empathize to a large degree with these people but I don't think I want to expect the government to fix this problem without
It appears that you forgot to finish that last sentence.
I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for the choices they make. I'm saying they aren't solely responsible for many of them. To what extent should people be held responsible for their choices, when they have few good options to choose from? Where do Americans get their priorities from? Do we pick them by performing research and giving careful consideration to the matters at hand? Or do we regurgitate them, believing them to be our own, after internalizing thousands of hours of advertising? If our priorities are misplaced (and I tend to think they are), we ought to look at the false needs created by our economic system.
I'm not sure why the sentence was unfinished. What I was trying to say is that I think we're going to reach a situation as today's younger (20's, 30's, and 40's) generations in debt are going to be unable to have a comfortable retirement and will consequently push hard for government assistance. I can try to empathize with that but I think it's going to be ruinous and, because of the magnitude of change involved, will establish the precedent that government has to do something about these self-inflicted problems rather. I think Americans need to wake up to reality of the world around them and ask themselves why they aren't behaving as intelligently as people in other nations, both those on par or exceeding our standard of living, and poorer (but improving) ones.
There was no period at the end of the sentence and the word "without" was hanging out there all by itself. Without what?
I think the demands for government assistance that you foresee are a possibility. I disagree with discounting all of the people in that possible future as suffering from the consequences of their behaviors. They'll be inheriting a huge national debt and a wrecked economy. I saw one headline recently citing economists projecting decades of bad times for the real estate market. Should we blame kids in elementary school today for growing up at a time when the dollar is tanking? They'll be suffering from far more than self-inflicted problems. The external problems that they didn't create will have a far greater impact on their lives.
Quote:Original post by trzy
As for advertising and false needs, I'm not sold on it. Every nation has marketers telling people what they should want. Not every nation gives in and racks up enormous personal debt.
You talk about the need to wake up to reality but you're not ready to throw advertising overboard? Not every nation rewrites it's laws to open the door to predatory lending either.
Quote:Original post by trzyQuote:Unless they happen to be Republican Presidents, in which case they can get away with torturing prisoners, spying on the public, lying to Congress and a host of other high crimes and misdemeanors.
I think they should have been held accountable for all these things. The "liberals" in Congress seem to be particularly unconcerned with such matters. After all, they've controlled Congress for a while and have done nothing out of petty political concerns. All talk and no action. The Republicans are at least fairly consistent in their attitudes if nothing else.
I think you'll find the true liberals in Congress by finding those members who are concerned with such matters. The Republicans can be well disciplined followers. They are consistent in their lust for power. This leaves them highly susceptible to severely contradicting themselves.
Quote:Original post by trzy
Sadly, I predict a McCain win this election.
Making a prediction before labor day, eh? I think the election is Obama's to lose.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
