Where did all this political ignorance come from anyways? And how can we fight it?

@Centroles,

Spoken like true republicans

0 Replies

Republicon’s are dirty degenerates, all of them!

0 Replies

@Centroles,

Centroles wrote:

Where did all this political ignorance come from anyways?

A decade or so again, people who didn't have a clue what they were talking about would usually just keep their mouth shut about politics.

Now you have everyone with two brain cells going around repeating or emailing some nonsensical, blatantly false talking point they heard on the radio or on fox news to everyone other ignorant person they know and getting them all riled up, without any of them doing any leg work to see if what they are all so pissed off about is even true (it almost always isn't)...

and here's proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448#t=0m44s

I'm not a republican, I don't watch fox news or CNN or any TV for that matter. But socialism is nothing more than giving people things they do not deserve. It creates lazy people just like the welfare system, it's a social program that makes people dependent upon the government and lowers the standard of living. That is a fact.

Social medicine will only make medical care low quality and create lines. People who really need to get treatment will be caught behind those who are abusing the system. As soon as people see it as "free" health care they will over consume. That means doctors and staff will be over worked which means medical equipment will be used more resulting in more maintenance work. Costs won't decline because companies that maintain medical equipment and supplies, will charge more for their services and products because it won't be very easy to track. It happens all the time. Just like the father and son company who sold plastic washers to the government. They were selling these washers for tens of thousands of dollars when the government was under the impression that they were only spending a few hundred. It is price corruption at it's finest.

That doesn't even address who is going to pay for it. Which means mandatory salary garnishing. We already have two mandatory taxes on income and both of those programs are bankrupt. So how can a system with two bankrupt programs run a third that will have even more consumers. For example not all Americans are receiving social security, yet the system is bankrupt. How can a system that will involve more Americans pay for itself if they can't even have one system function without going bankrupt?

People love the idea of socialism, but they neglect to understand what socialism means to a country. It will lower the standard of living for everyone and it won't solve any economic problems, instead it will just create more.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Next time your house catches on fire, you tell those Socialized Fire Fighters to **** off, mkay? Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

i'm not a political expert, but i play one on the internet

politicians from all parties are soulless scumbags

vote early, vote often

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Next time your house catches on fire, you tell those Socialized Fire Fighters to **** off, mkay? Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

Cycloptichorn

Actually I don't have any problem with this. I would support a private fire protection industry. You would have far better out comes if it were privately run. But too many people have bought into the idea that you can't run these types of programs privately. Sure you can. It's just everyone is use to the government running it and they are under the impression that government is required for these types of services.

1 Reply

@Centroles,

Centroles wrote:

Where did all this political ignorance come from anyways?

A decade or so again, people who didn't have a clue what they were talking about would usually just keep their mouth shut about politics.

Now you have everyone with two brain cells going around repeating or emailing some nonsensical, blatantly false talking point they heard on the radio or on fox news to everyone other ignorant person they know and getting them all riled up, without any of them doing any leg work to see if what they are all so pissed off about is even true (it almost always isn't)...

and here's proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448#t=0m44s

Ignorance is to politics what space is to physics... It did not come from anywhere, but is everywhere... Let me explain the situation... Those people who formed this society feared the masses because they were uneducated, and so they denied them political power which was reserved for the more educated, and wealthy... Since they had no political power, the masses could then be denied education, which only justified their want of political power... That is the original Catch 22...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

You cannot define socialism any more than anything else on this planet as nothing more than...... Such reductionism has always been nonsense, and nothing more than... I understand you want to make a point... Do it without an empty generality...Pleez...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

You cannot define socialism any more than anything else on this planet as nothing more than...... Such reductionism has always been nonsense, and nothing more than... I understand you want to make a point... Do it without an empty generality...Pleez...

I'm saying the basic impression I have with the general atmosphere behind socialism is that everyone will get their fair share of what people consider basic needs. They lump them into one big ball, like fire protection, security, education, ect. They say these things should be available to everyone without discrimination and they should be provided by the government. They now want to include health care as being some basic necessity, but they neglect the fact that the government is failing to maintain these other systems. Law enforcement is turning into a for profit business. With red light cameras popping up everywhere, they claim it is for public safety when in fact it has been shown that they do not reduce any accidents. It is nothing more than a way to generate more tax income for the government. The postal service is running into the red. Social security is bankrupt and will require additional funding to maintain the program from here on out.

People like the idea of it, but they fail to understand how the system will work or what problems it creates. They don't care about those things or what sort of long term effects it has. There is a reason why we did not start this country off on these social programs.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

i'm not a political expert, but i play one on the internet

politicians from all parties are soulless scumbags

vote early, vote often

You are correct...Parties are a level of inertia that is extra constitutional in a government top loaded with inertia... Two houses, President, Supreme Court, and all the state governments besides, all for inertia; resistence to change... It was a wonder anything ever got done, and the parties only make progress more impossible... We must move the parties to move the government??? Where is that written???...

Parties are just a hold over from England... Napoleon was absolutely correct in making them illegal, which is not to say he was at all legal... But, there is nothing about bad government that parties will ever make better... National parties turn every issue into a national issues, and that is not necessary or advisable...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fido wrote:

You cannot define socialism any more than anything else on this planet as nothing more than...... Such reductionism has always been nonsense, and nothing more than... I understand you want to make a point... Do it without an empty generality...Pleez...

I'm saying the basic impression I have with the general atmosphere behind socialism is that everyone will get their fair share of what people consider basic needs. They lump them into one big ball, like fire protection, security, education, ect. They say these things should be available to everyone without discrimination and they should be provided by the government. They now want to include health care as being some basic necessity, but they neglect the fact that the government is failing to maintain these other systems. Law enforcement is turning into a for profit business. With red light cameras popping up everywhere, they claim it is for public safety when in fact it has been shown that they do not reduce any accidents. It is nothing more than a way to generate more tax income for the government. The postal service is running into the red. Social security is bankrupt and will require additional funding to maintain the program from here on out.

People like the idea of it, but they fail to understand how the system will work or what problems it creates. They don't care about those things or what sort of long term effects it has. There is a reason why we did not start this country off on these social programs.

What you do not understand is that socialism was a reality long before it was ever considered as an ideology, and the problem you may see may have nothing whatever to do with socialism without the ism, as people living with little and within their means with a very basic economy, which was not an economy of money, but of honor... No honor equals no socialism... Where money is dear, honor is cheap; and though all peoples have come through socialism, money economies destroy their societies... It is not about fun, and it is not about justice... The fact is that socialism is about survival, and if you are not there yet there is never any sense you will see in socialism...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Next time your house catches on fire, you tell those Socialized Fire Fighters to **** off, mkay? Otherwise, you're just being lazy.

Cycloptichorn

Actually I don't have any problem with this. I would support a private fire protection industry. You would have far better out comes if it were privately run.

How exactly would you measure these better outcomes? Do you allege that current socialized firefighters do a poor job of protecting homes and businesses from fires currently?

Quote:

But too many people have bought into the idea that you can't run these types of programs privately. Sure you can. It's just everyone is use to the government running it and they are under the impression that government is required for these types of services.

How exactly would you make a profit, running a private firefighting service?

I really don't think you've thought this through very well.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

the local volunteer fire department here hasn't lost a foundation yet

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

the local volunteer fire department here hasn't lost a foundation yet

Whew, at least you can rebuild

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How exactly would you measure these better outcomes? Do you allege that current socialized firefighters do a poor job of protecting homes and businesses from fires currently?

Well I am actually referring to some local corruption that has been happening. There was a fire chief from a small station outside Seattle that was making 5 times the salary as the fire chief that runs all of Seattle. Why is it one fire chief who only watched over one fire department gets paid more than a fire chief who has to over look five or six stations? It makes no sense. It is part of the corruption because the government does not check itself and when it does, it just ends up creating another level of bureaucracy which inevitably increases costs. This happens not only with fire but law enforcement as well. I am sure that this is not some local rare event, but it probably happens in many other places. It's just this one got noticed and brought to the attention of the people.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How exactly would you make a profit, running a private firefighting service?

Simple. You pay a small monthly fee which you could consider to be fire prevention to the fire department. They can set the price of this monthly fee according to what they feel is necessary to maintain themselves and how many homes or businesses they monitor. If they charge too much, a consumer always has the option to go with a different fire protection "agency". When a fire breaks out the agency in-charge of that building or structure responds and is responsible for containing and controlling that fire. They have every incentive to control it. Because they will lose that income if they lose the building.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I really don't think you've thought this through very well.

No I think it is you, who has not thought this through at all. I admit there is not a detailed description of how every situation would play out. But it really isn't that hard to figure out how a private company would function that provided fire protection.

I actually get the idea from how Chinese medicine use to function. What people did was they paid a small fee to a traveling doctor to keep them healthy. However; if anyone got sick, they actually paid the doctor less. So the doctor had every incentive to keep everyone healthy, because if anyone fell sick it was his fault, his responsibility. As it currently is, doctors really have no incentive to keep you healthy, they just wait for you to get sick then they make money regardless if you get better or not. This is the wrong incentive structure.

So going back to the fire protection agency. If your house catches fire and you lose the house then that agency has failed in their duty. So as long as the market is free, then a competitor will always pick up the slack of an inferior business. This is something that you rarely see in the states because the government gets too involved and prevents the free market from handling the problems. When a business does underhanded things and tries to cut corners which leads to disaster then let that business fail. Don't prop it up because that only encourages bad business practices to continue.

0 Replies

Listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIZIiY81Ek&playnext=1&videos=ofFbvj4XLdA

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIZIiY81Ek&playnext=1&videos=ofFbvj4XLdA

I listened.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

This article about Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) really depressed me.

Quote:

But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. "They were upset with me," Inglis recalls. "They are all Glenn Beck watchers." About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, "They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'" Inglis didn't know how to respond.

Quote:

Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

This article about Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) really depressed me.

Quote:
But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. "They were upset with me," Inglis recalls. "They are all Glenn Beck watchers." About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, "They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'" Inglis didn't know how to respond.

Quote:
Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.

Really; Anti Semitism??? For years the banks have been taking more out of this country than labor and nature can replace... With every cheap product imported, with ever dollar of capital exported, with every layoff and plant closing, and every small farm sold- more of our national wealth built up over generations has become the property of a few... I don't know how long it will keep on ticking, but that clock has about run out of time... And it is a good way of calling all those tea partiers nuts to call them anti semitic, but to be anti Jew, or anti banker is not the same as being anti semitic or racist... Being Jewish is not a genetic thing, but a social and religious thing... They might be as over bred as a puppy in a puppy mill, but that is not the real problem... The problem is that they think, like capitalist everywhere, that they have the right to live off us, and prey upon us, and if we do not like it then out comes the straw dog of anti semitism... They are not all like that, and it is not a genetic illness... It is like a bad habit, and one those who suffer it must learn to break...I agree that the tea partiers are nuts... They do not know what to do; but their anger is justified and real and over due..

0 Replies

Where did all this political ignorance come from anyways? And how can we fight it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know