Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

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.

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

I think being good is more important than being fair, even if not as effective. In my eyes, every time someone dies and the government could have prevented it, the government has failed in my eyes.

How come so many retire early and many after WWI never worked (family inheritance)? Even today, many people who are rich enough simply stop trying. It's seen from the upper classes to the lower classes. Some people think that a house is sufficient; they don't need a mansion. Others think the same about an apartment. Some of the wealthy don't have to work at all and they still make money. Of course, the ones that are the most famous are the incredibly wealthy; the ones born into opportunity and the ones favored by luck who take chances all the way and take all the rewards. After a certain point, they just can't lose.

most people who are killed are killed by governments. in the old days it used to be the church. in other words the people who ask that you give them control over your life so they will protect you :ban:

I still don't think the one born into poverty and crap should have nothing, though.

the problem as i see it is that if you think everybody needs to be taken care of - then this should also include all of the BILLIONS of people in the world who live in much poorer conditions than the poorest people in America.

so every working American would have to share his income on average with 20 other people in Africa, Latin America etc.

and yet these lower class Americans who scream about equality and demand their welfare checks don't want to share any of their money with people who are much worse off than they are. sounds like hypocrisy.

Capitalism is fine with me as long as there's an adequate safety net; we all don't have to live equally, but we should at least be able to live without despair and distress. Hard work should reward, but not working hard should not destroy. I really hope Obama's change of attitude will lead to this change in government. However, he's moved too far into the middle and depends too much on bipartisanship that a comeback seems unlikely at this point of his presidency.
What do you guys think of the current matter (economic standpoint, role of government in reality, social standpoint)?

Obama is honest

:rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh:

YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

I think by what he means is that he's more honest that most politicians.

if you watch the film you will see even that is not the case.

with the exception of health care reform Obama has broken virtually all of his campaign promises.

campaign promises are pretty much made to be broken in the world of politics.

perhaps. but no matter how you look at it the words "honest" and "Obama" cannot be used in the same sentence.

The two party system exists so that when they screw you they can always point the finger at the other guy and say it's their fault. For all other purposes its a 1 party system.

Jack Flash has bought into this false left-right paradigm which is what i called him out on.

From Wiki-Pedia:
False Left-Right Paradigm: The political conspiracy theory that states that the two political parties both liberal and conservatives, share a common interest and goal, as a one body ruling authority over its masses. The two parties act to influence the general population while keeping control of the political spectrum.

The False Left-Right Paradigm theorizes that both political groups use its media channels to dramatize party warfare distraction, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to propagandize and divide the audience. Psychological warfare is coordinated on all levels of politics and fed through media controlled outlets, to divert attention away from the ruling class's hidden agendas. By drawing attention to differences between two political systems, ideologies, races, and classes, the political groups obscure and divide unity among the masses. This tactic creates confusion and frustration among the population, enabling the global elite to preserve stolen wealth and power through maintaining the illusion of a two-party system of checks and balances. The two-party system of checks and balances becomes ineffective, limiting individual liberties and fostering an environment of political corruption.

I just like Obama more than most presidents because even though he didn't do much in his first year (but he's improving now thanks to the Massachusetts loss), he made attempts to keep his promises that many presidents did not. And I think attempts are better than the nothingness most presidents presented us with. This isn't the first time he presented a bank plan; however, he wanted bipartisanship and that was his ultimate failure.

This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that only the Republican party uses the tactics outlined in the definition above. This would not qualify to be a "False Left-Right Paradigm" under the definition.