0
   

United states ranting, a changing country

 
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 05:25 pm
@Leonard,
"These proposals of yours which I underlined are unconstitional. I thought you supported the consitition? The only proposal I agree with is 'punishment for breaking laws,' and who wouldn't? An anarchist I suppose...and I'm not one. "
-I'll try to explain here..
Gun Control: This has nothing to do with taking away the right to bear arms

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 06:31 PM ----------



---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 06:42 PM ----------

I half-agree with you here, BrightNoon. I have to say though, that it would be hell of a lot harder to make a living without government. They do provide those things, but no government is difficult. The system of commerce and trade we have allows a wealthy vintner to send a village somewhere remote a crate of food, or even money. Government sponsors the people who do the shipping (usually) and the money from the government comes from taxes. Taxes are possibly badly distributed, but who wouldn't want a village to receive goods? I must note that I don't believe the poor or homeless should have to pay the same taxes as the middle class. The middle class is the biggest group, but the rich own a majority of the wealth. I hate the trickle-down effect, so I have to say that the rich should do a little more to help, though not necessarily be taxed higher. Why? Because they are the most generous people in america. They donate large percentages of their wealth, while us here in the middle class toss a few coins or a dollar in a beggar's cup. They donate to the people worse off than the middle class. Anyone making a pleasant living on their own shouldn't expect handouts from the rich. After all, they have all they need already, and don't need more. Even when I was a kid, living in a family who couldn't afford fast food, I still thought that we aren't worthy of an extra couple bucks.
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 01:21 pm
@Leonard,
I think it's been pretty well documented that Americans tend to be less informed about their world than people in many other lands.

I think the fault lies in the horrible decline in the American media which, as previously noted, has lapsed from an information vehicle to more of an entertainment-directed voice ("if it bleeds, it leads"). This is by no means unique to the United States but you have spawned the likes of Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly. I think the level and scope of misinformation is higher in the United States than elsewhere in the West.

I recall one study that found something in the order of 60% of FOX viewers were convinced that WMDs had been found in Iraq two years after the Bush administration acknowledged no such weapons existed. Those are people who have been duped by their media of choice.

Are Americans more divided at the moment? I think so. I don't recall having seen your countrymen this divided since the final years of America's war in Vietnam. I think Americans became more cohesive after that, their unity peaking under the Reagan administration. For all his many flaws, Ronald Reagan made the American people truly proud to be American again.

Now Leonard you contend that liberals "mouth off" that government is terrible but who was it who uttered the mantra that "government isn't the answer, it's the problem"? I don't think Grover Norquist or any of the legions of neo-cons were liberal either, do you?

Can Americans again find bipartisan unity? I think it's definitely possible but it will take a genuine restoration of America's middle class. The middle class is less tolerant of partisanship, left or right, and sees a vested interest in social cohesiveness. Whether the will to achieve that remains and whether that option will be overtaken by events shaping today's world is unclear. There was an awesome vitality and robustness, a genuine sense of confidence that bolstered America while the middle class flourished.

Finally, do I see these problems in my country, Canada? To some extent, yes. The evidence is most plain in those provinces that had American-style manufacturing economies. We too have seen a widening of the gap between rich and poor albeit not on the scale you have experienced. I suppose we weather these changes a bit better because, liberal or conservative, were a more cohesive society. Polls repeatedly show both sides tend to be socially moderate and to strongly support our social welfare programmes and public healthcare, for example.
0 Replies
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 08:02 pm
@Leonard,
...I don't see how my thread deserves a 1/5 (who does that, anyway?), but i'll ignore that for now...
Great to know that there are problems elsewhere, not that problems are good, but at least i'm not the only one who thinks there's a problem here. Unfortunately we can't reach a consensus, so it's up to logic to solve the problem. We can't agree on something trivial or arguable such as the ethics of abortion or what to do with healthcare, but certain economic topics can be mostly agreed on, such as what to do with interest rates and tax.

---------- Post added 09-03-2009 at 09:05 PM ----------

"Keynesianism ought to be considered a mental illness."
-Thank you, I completely agree.
0 Replies
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 07:08 pm
@Leonard,
I agree with your post, RDRDRD1. And I regret using ad hominems in my OP, though in retrospect I think I was trying to unsuccessfully say vague things to prevent insulting anyone.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 11:22 am
@Leonard,
I think the biggest issue with the United States right now, and what divides people more than anything else, is the take over of the airwaves by corporate interests and baffoons that preach the stance of the establishment. There is very little of a counter to conservative punditry, and as a result, people lack a balance of voice on the airwaves. Thus, there is the appearance that there is only one side of the story, and the pundits are able to amass a large group of people that speak against their best interests.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 12:14 am
@Theaetetus,
That is the case, and why is that the case? Is it because the government is socialistically trying to take control of the private sector? No, it's because certain elements in the private sector (rhymes with schmoldman schmachs) is taking over the government; or rather exterting the control it already has, and has had for a long time. Fascism.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 11:07 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon, the wealthy have had this power since day one... day one some twenty thousand years ago.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 06:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
And your point is what?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 06:25 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;86467 wrote:
Survive Jimmy Carter? Survive the most morally upright President of the modern era?

Oh no, he botch the Hostage Crisis. At least he never botched a war.

This was a man who railed against the injustices of the Georgia courts and Georgia attorneys - to their faces at a speech at the University of Georgia Law School. That takes some, what I like to call, moral balls.

This was a man who, after publicly saying that McGovern was unelectable, tried to get on as the man's running mate. He knew McGovern would lose, but was willing to be a losing VP candidate anyway. To run with the better man, to run with the good and honest McGovern against the despicable, criminal Nixon.

He opposed the death penalty, work extensively for civil rights - as the Governor of Georgia for goodness sake! He gave amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers, he was the first President to address gay rights - and he supported gay rights! Carter had the moral balls to speak honestly to the public - which is evident to anyone who cares to give his "Malaise" speech a listen.

This is a Nobel Prize winning diplomat who spent unimaginable energy try to better the situation in Israel/Palestine at a time when President Bush, who we may not have survived at all, was unwilling to do anything at all but support the mounting death toll.

Jimmy Carter is a great American, maybe the greatest alive, a man who boldly served his country as Governor of Georgia and then as President of the United States. He is a humble man, an honest man, and one of the great modern American Presidents.

His electoral defeat marked the end of an era - and the full blossoming of PR-Politics with the election of B-movie actor, cigarette peddling Ronald Reagan.

Survived Jimmy Carter.... I'm surprised we survived with only one term with him in office. We desperately needed two.


I guess you judge people by their motives (like lusting in his heart-but not for Rosylyn). I judge them by what they do. Like 20% inflation: a wrecked economy; and general incompetence. As well as, of course, the fact if not for him, we would not have the problems we are having with Iran now. And, this does not even take into consideration his foolishness about what is happening in the rest of the middle east. Yes, that we survived I'll never lie to you Jimmy, and we are still trying to survive him, since he will simply not shut up and grow peanuts.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:13 am
@kennethamy,
BrightNoon;95304 wrote:
And your point is what?


That what you call fascism is not, in fact, fascism.

kennethamy;95306 wrote:
I guess you judge people by their motives (like lusting in his heart-but not for Rosylyn).


Did I neglect to list Carter's accomplishments? Oh, that's right, that's all I listed - his actions, his accomplishments.

kennethamy;95306 wrote:
I judge them by what they do.


Then you acknowledge the variety of marvelous and praiseworthy efforts of Carter I mentioned in my previous post, right?

kennethamy;95306 wrote:
Like 20% inflation: a wrecked economy; and general incompetence.


And you imagine that these problems were the result of something Carter did? You'd be wrong, by the way.

Let's not forget that Congress tabled Carter's efforts to combat those economic woes. He didn't cause the problem... his attempts to fix the problem were blocked by Congress... what does this have to do with Carter being a poor President again?

kennethamy;95306 wrote:
As well as, of course, the fact if not for him, we would not have the problems we are having with Iran now.


Are you saying that Carter is responsible for the 1953 deposing of the elected Mossadegh? Wait, that's right, it was Eisenhower who did that... Operation Ajax. Go check your history before you dump that mess on Carter. Our relations were already ruined by the time he got into office.

kennethamy;95306 wrote:
And, this does not even take into consideration his foolishness about what is happening in the rest of the middle east.


Such as?

Again, this is the man who busied himself with working for peace in Palestine while the sitting President twiddled his thumbs.

Sorry Ken, but you're going to have to bring some history to the table instead of this right wing historical revisionism. You might also give some reason as to why my earlier points are irrelevant to the issue of Carter's greatness as a President.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:32 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;95793 wrote:
That what you call fascism is not, in fact, fascism.



Did I neglect to list Carter's accomplishments? Oh, that's right, that's all I listed - his actions, his accomplishments.



Then you acknowledge the variety of marvelous and praiseworthy efforts of Carter I mentioned in my previous post, right?



And you imagine that these problems were the result of something Carter did? You'd be wrong, by the way.

Let's not forget that Congress tabled Carter's efforts to combat those economic woes. He didn't cause the problem... his attempts to fix the problem were blocked by Congress... what does this have to do with Carter being a poor President again?



Are you saying that Carter is responsible for the 1953 deposing of the elected Mossadegh? Wait, that's right, it was Eisenhower who did that... Operation Ajax. Go check your history before you dump that mess on Carter. Our relations were already ruined by the time he got into office.



Such as?

Again, this is the man who busied himself with working for peace in Palestine while the sitting President twiddled his thumbs.

Sorry Ken, but you're going to have to bring some history to the table instead of this right wing historical revisionism. You might also give some reason as to why my earlier points are irrelevant to the issue of Carter's greatness as a President.


Well, the American people did not agree with you. And Reagan put paid to the Soviet Union, and won the cold war. Carter, and his idiotic security advisor with the unpronouncible name (Brezhninski?) would have shored them up in the interests of appeasement. Another shot of Carter in the form of Obama may sink the country.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:51 am
@kennethamy,
Who cares what the popular opinion happens to be? Recall that logical fallacy?

And Reagan did not win the Cold War. Sheesh. What is with this right wing historical revisionism? Reagan happened to be President when the Soviet Union finally experienced the inevitable economic collapse resulting from their unsustainable military spending.

Calling Carter's Security Adviser an idiot, while neglecting every single one of my points, is hardly a way to support your case. But if that's all your willing to do...

And then you talk of sinking the country! You wont back up your claims, you ignore my arguments, yet you fly head on into further conclusions that are simply not supported by experience. I get the feeling I'm wasting my time talking to someone who cares only about spouting some ideological fantasy about Carter rather than discussing the man's actual works. I hope that is not the case.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:02 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;95808 wrote:
Who cares what the popular opinion happens to be? Recall that logical fallacy?

And Reagan did not win the Cold War. Sheesh. What is with this right wing historical revisionism? Reagan happened to be President when the Soviet Union finally experienced the inevitable economic collapse resulting from their unsustainable military spending.

Calling Carter's Security Adviser an idiot, while neglecting every single one of my points, is hardly a way to support your case. But if that's all your willing to do...

And then you talk of sinking the country! You wont back up your claims, you ignore my arguments, yet you fly head on into further conclusions that are simply not supported by experience. I get the feeling I'm wasting my time talking to someone who cares only about spouting some ideological fantasy about Carter rather than discussing the man's actual works. I hope that is not the case.


Well, of course, the fact that Reagan swamped Carter does not make Reagan right, and Carter wrong (fallacy of the argumentum ad populum). But I did not argue that. I pointed out that Carter was swept out of office, and there were perfectly good reasons why he was. (Stagflaton, Iran, and he was a general downer. And now, of course, he keeps on zinging his country whenever he has the chance). His actual work, up to now, is to give aid and comfort to those who wish to destroy Israel, and undermine the United States. He also bangs nails into boards. At least that is what he likes to do on tv. And he never, never, shuts up.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:06 am
@kennethamy,
Wow. Except that Reagan did happen to win that election, nothing else you said in that post is true. Awesome. I am literally in awe. And now I know my feeling was spot on. Peace.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:15 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;95819 wrote:
Wow. Except that Reagan did happen to win that election, nothing else you said in that post is true. Awesome. I am literally in awe. And now I know my feeling was spot on. Peace.



"Happen" to win? No particular reason, it was simply an impulse on the part of the voters. Some impulse! Jimmy was a clown. He and that dumb brother of his, Billy. And still is. Jimmy and Billy!!
0 Replies
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:37 pm
@Leonard,
What is being discussed here?
As for Reagan, any other president would have also been pressured to end the war.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:08 pm
@Leonard,
Leonard;95876 wrote:
What is being discussed here?
As for Reagan, any other president would have also been pressured to end the war.


And Reagan did. Most Liberals believed that it was impossible to defeat the Soviet Union. That we could at best, "contain" them. Thus George Kennan's containment policy. But Reagen (and Paul Nitze) believed we could defeat them. And we did. There is no more Soviet Union, and the Poland, and Hungary, and the other East European slave states, are now free.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 10:58 pm
@Leonard,
Delete ...........
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 02:46 am
@Leonard,
Why ya all got to fight is beyond me for God's sake can we not have a bit of peace for once, if not for the sake of the children.
Thanks.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2009 06:10 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;96671 wrote:
Why ya all got to fight is beyond me for God's sake can we not have a bit of peace for once, if not for the sake of the children.
Thanks.


Who's fighting? Are you talking about disagreement?
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 01:52:08