1
   

Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

 
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 02:29 am
Quote:
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry is not

Perry made the announcement in a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent Wednesday. The money would be available via the federal Race to the Top program, which will provide $4.35 billion in grants to states that take certain steps intended to raise academic standards, such as performance pay for teachers and principals, loosening caps on the number of charter schools, and building long-term student tracking systems.

In his letter, Perry said it would be foolish Perry wrote. Texas is on the right path

Perry has been one of the most outspoken critics of the $787 billion stimulus program President Barack Obama shepherded through Congress last year, hell-bentinto a socialist country in November.

His criticismhave made him a hero in the tea party movement[/URL], and with the more conservative elements in Texas political circles."


[CENTER]http://smileyicons.net/s/235.png THEY'RE #40!! THEY'RE #40!! THEY'RE #40!! http://smileyicons.net/s/282.png [/CENTER]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,112 • Replies: 95
No top replies

 
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 10:06 am
@Mr Shaman,
I wonder if Texas seceded ... would they get murdered ( literally ) for it ?

Ideally of course i would like California to secede cuz i would rather live in Cali than Texas but that's too much to ask for.
Mr Shaman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 02:03 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69619 wrote:
I wonder if Texas seceded ... would they get murdered ( literally ) for it?

[CENTER]That'd surely make Life more-tolerable, for History text-book publishers....[/CENTER]
Quote:
"The bottom line is that Texas and California are the biggest buyers of textbooks in the country, and what we adopt in Texas is what the rest of the country gets,'' said Carol Jones, the field director of the Texas chapter of Citizens for a Sound Economy, part of the coalition monitoring books for errors, examples of political bias, omissions or information that it deems offensive and that it says gives the texts a liberal slant.

This year, Pearson Prentice Hall is offering 27 other books for adoption in Texas, ranging from texts for first grade social studies to ones for Advanced Placement world history. The potential prize is great: Texas has allocated $700 million over the next two years for textbooks and related materials in history and social studies -- a sizable chunk of the nation's $4.5 billion textbook market."
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 11:04 pm
@Mr Shaman,
Mr. Shaman;69648 wrote:
[CENTER]That'd surely make Life more-tolerable, for History text-book publishers....[/CENTER]


Texans need SOMETHING to hit each other in the head with. I mean, that hollow sound IS in tone.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 11:49 pm
@bisurge,
I think you guys are missing the point here entirely.

Perry is trying to protest the socialist bailout economics and should be commended for that.

Everybody else just bends over for Obama's black cock.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 11:52 pm
@Mr Shaman,
Is socialism so much worse than capitalism? At least socialism educates and does not discriminate. Unlike a capitalistic government. And you have to admit, Wall Street has control of White House, which has control of Main Street.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:11 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69695 wrote:

And you have to admit, Wall Street has control of White House, which has control of Main Street.


of course. that part is a fact.

bisurge;69695 wrote:
Is socialism so much worse than capitalism?


YouTube - Milton Friedman Tells Phil Donahue Why Socialism Fails

bisurge;69695 wrote:
At least socialism educates and does not discriminate. Unlike a capitalistic government.


socialism doesn't discriminate ? Hitler and Stalin were socialists. Millions of people in Ukraine were starved to death by Stalin - they weren't discriminated against ? How about the Jews in Hitler's camps ? How about the Chinese in China's secret black prisons ?

And what socialism teaches for the most part is to Love Hitler, Love Stalin, Love Mao or whoever may be the party leader at the time.

to an ordinary person Socialism seems to make more sense than Capitalism - that's because an ordinary person doesn't understand much. if ordinary people were intelligent enough to make correct choices we wouldn't keep electing a government that ***s us in the ass year after year after year.

neither socialism nor capitalism can ever be perfect because people aren't perfect. but Capitalism recognizes people's imperfections and tries to turn people's selfishness into productive activity. Socialism merely ignores these problems hoping that if you close your eyes they will disappear - always with disastrous results.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:36 am
@Mr Shaman,
Socialism addresses the problems better than capitalism does. Got a broken leg? Government healthcare. Capitalism? Wait until it's deformed and then go to the emergency room. Sick and can't go to work? Socialism will take care of you. Capitalism? Suck it; you're losing your pay the minute you run out of sick/free days. Naive and can't do jobs as well as other people? It's okay, you can still live. Capitalism? You're at the mercy of the rich and powerful.
Hitler was not a socialist; he was a fascist. While fascists consider themselves socialists, they manifest the idealism behind socialism to their own views. Stalin is part of Russian communism. Basically, they take your cows and make war, and then make you pay for the cows. Then, if you're a different ethnicity, you get thrown into the mountains. Both those leaders were not true socialists. Karl Marx came up with communism as a solution to the dreaded working conditions for immigrants, women, and children of the Industrial Revolution.
Basically, I'm saying the idea of socialism is much better than capitalism, even if it isn't in practice. And by saying that capitalism is better than socialism on paper isn't saying much. On paper, both should be effective. But yes, Americans pick the wrong people to lead them. More puppets of Wall Street are going into government. The only non-sellout in the whole history of America was probably Andrew Jackson, who actually had the balls to fight big business.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:00 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69699 wrote:
Basically, I'm saying the idea of socialism is much better than capitalism, even if it isn't in practice. And by saying that capitalism is better than socialism on paper isn't saying much. On paper, both should be effective. But yes, Americans pick the wrong people to lead them. More puppets of Wall Street are going into government. The only non-sellout in the whole history of America was probably Andrew Jackson, who actually had the balls to fight big business.


i agree with that part of your post. both work on paper, with a slight edge going to socialism. neither works in practice, with a slight edge going to capitalism.

bisurge;69699 wrote:
Hitler was not a socialist; he was a fascist. While fascists consider themselves socialists, they manifest the idealism behind socialism to their own views. Stalin is part of Russian communism. Basically, they take your cows and make war, and then make you pay for the cows. Then, if you're a different ethnicity, you get thrown into the mountains. Both those leaders were not true socialists. Karl Marx came up with communism as a solution to the dreaded working conditions for immigrants, women, and children of the Industrial Revolution.


i am reading a book right now on how to spot errors of logic in political debates. you just used a "begging the question" logical fallacy. you have first excluded from your definition of socialists all the "bad guys" and then you used that definition to "prove" that socialists are "good guys" which in fact is absolutely illogical. all you have really proven is that good guys are good guys and bad guys are bad guys.

bisurge;69699 wrote:
Socialism addresses the problems better than capitalism does. Got a broken leg? Government healthcare. Capitalism? Wait until it's deformed and then go to the emergency room. Sick and can't go to work? Socialism will take care of you. Capitalism? Suck it; you're losing your pay the minute you run out of sick/free days. Naive and can't do jobs as well as other people? It's okay, you can still live. Capitalism? You're at the mercy of the rich and powerful.


that's what it seems like until you realize that some loser guy on welfare who has never worked in his life gets paid more money in USA than doctors used to get paid in Soviet Union.

or when you realize that very expensive medical procedures like heart surgery that SOME Amerians can't afford because they have no health insurance - in Soviet Union you wouldn't even have heard about such procedures in the first place.

How do you expect people who on average make $150 per month to be able to afford surgeries that on average cost $100,000 ? ? ? under ANY system ?

Average life expectancy for a man in Russia today is 55 years. Compare this to roughly 80 years for countries like France and Japan who have never been socialist.

the "equality" under Socialism accomplishes only one thing - EVERYBODY is poor. then you think you have it all - because you can't compare what you have to what rich people do - because you have never seen a rich person in your life - because everybody is poor. and if you try to find out how people live outside of your socialist utopia you get executed by a firing squad ( in North Korea ).
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:10 am
@NEUROSPORT,
socialism has ONE advantage which is very real - peace of mind. you know that ultimately no matter what you do - or don't do - your life will be more or less exactly the same.

in Capitalism its the opposite. you know what unless you work as hard as you POSSIBLY can ALL THE TIME then you will not have as much $$$ as your neighbor so you will not have a car as nice, you will not have a girlfriend as nice, you will not have a doctor as nice, you will not be able to afford eating the healthiest organic food, and worst of all - YOUR NEIGHBOR WILL KNOW ALL THAT ABOUT YOU and laugh at you and despise you !

and your girlfriend may leave you for another guy because he is "more successful" and you will have to kill yourself.

so that's a REAL and IMPORTANT difference between socialism and capitalism.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 02:04 am
@Mr Shaman,
What I don't agree with that is that capitalism supporters always claim that capitalism makes everyone work hard. However, capitalism also means a select few will ride on inheritance and already-managed stocks so they get richer and more powerful and have more control on government while everyone else is working hard below them. Furthermore, even though capitalism is supposed to spur the human to work harder, many people, thanks to the laziness of human nature, only work hard enough to live and QQ in jealousy. Like I said in my other thread, socialism is better on paper than capitalism but not as good in practice; you are right about that. But I believe that capitalism does not follow what it should do on paper at all either, even if it does it better than other types of government.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:32 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69709 wrote:
select few will ride on inheritance and already-managed stocks so they get richer and more powerful and have more control on government while everyone else is working hard below them.


that's why there is:

Inheritance tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 05:53 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69713 wrote:

You honestly think that takes enough money away from someone to encourage them to work hard? They still have enough to ride out their lives.
jpn of Seattle
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 08:45 pm
@bisurge,
Weekends are Socialist.
Interstate Freeway system is Socialist.
Social Security and Medicare are Socialist.

America and Western Europe use a mix of capitalism and socialism. Europe is generally more socialist in its mix than America is. Europe has a much stronger social safety net. Their health care is more widely accessable; their unemployment benefits are greater, and so on.

Comparing the US to Russia is not nearly as interesting or instructive as comparing the US to Western Europe.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 08:58 pm
@Mr Shaman,
I strongly agree with the socialist safety net, such as government health care and checks on large businesses and corporations. That's not like communism or other forms of pure socialism where all the power ends up in the hands of a few. In fact, I think socialism might work better in a "representative democracy" than a communist government, simply because the former is much harder to corrupt. However, capitalism is easily corrupted as the people with the most money have the most influence and call the shots. Which is why the economy crashed (and why we need regulations for these pricks so we can get back on the track of a representative DEMOCRACY and not a capitalistic country).
jpn of Seattle
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:00 pm
@bisurge,
I think you may be mixing categories. As I understand it;

Democracy is a political system.

Communism is a political system and an economic system.

Capitalism is an economic system.
Socialism is an economic system.

All modern western democratic nations have economies that employ a mix of capitalism and socialism.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:19 pm
@Mr Shaman,
Capitalism is an economic system? Really? Because the last time I checked, the big businessmen of a capitalism really influenced the legislation and politicians in power of the country. Capitalism is ideally only an economic system; same with socialism. Since the economy is so tied in with politics however, the government begins the distributors of wealth in socialism and the entrepreneurs become the funding for the government in a capitalism. So yes, capitalism by definition is an economic system. But it has so much influence on our "representative democracy" that it blurs the line. And yes, socialism is by definition an economic system. However, who is going to distribute the wealth? Government.
jpn of Seattle
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:31 pm
@bisurge,
I don't disagree that big money dominates our political system. You're right: the lines are very blurred.

As for government distributing the wealth, I think that's one of the indicators of a country being more or less Socialist: the more Socialist the system, the more the money is redistributed.
0 Replies
 
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:29 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69717 wrote:
You honestly think that takes enough money away from someone to encourage them to work hard? They still have enough to ride out their lives.


you forget that rich people don't think the way you do.

just because they have a couple million won't stop them from trying to make more.

if rich people thought the way you do:

1 - they wouldn't be rich

2 - capitalism would never have even been invented
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:50 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69728 wrote:
Capitalism is an economic system? Really? Because the last time I checked, the big businessmen of a capitalism really influenced the legislation and politicians in power of the country. Capitalism is ideally only an economic system; same with socialism. Since the economy is so tied in with politics however, the government begins the distributors of wealth in socialism and the entrepreneurs become the funding for the government in a capitalism. So yes, capitalism by definition is an economic system. But it has so much influence on our "representative democracy" that it blurs the line. And yes, socialism is by definition an economic system. However, who is going to distribute the wealth? Government.


Capitalism is fundamentally grounded in the concept of liberty. Socialism in concept of marginal utility.

Capitalists think the most important thing is that everyone is free to do what they want - including be free to have a toilet out of 24K Gold when your neighbor is starving to death.

Socialists think the most important thing is that the poorest person in the nation has food and shelter and medical care. They steal the rich guy's toilet and melt it down into coins for the poor guy's welfare checks.

Capitalists think nobody has the right to steal their toilet. Socialists think nobody has the right to have a gold toilet.

These beliefs are relevant to both social and economic questions. There are exceptions, but for the most part a country either has liberty ( both social and economic ) or doesn't have it.

fascism is an exception where capitalism has lost social liberties. Lenin has said that "fascism is Capitalism in decay" and that is what we have today.

i don't think it is possible to have a socialist system with liberties of any kind. simply because some people would want to get rich and they would have to be kept in prison for this thought crime.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 01:08:43