Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

"To Impress The Thoughtless"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "To Impress The Thoughtless"

    (Placed here for 'political theory')

    We open with the words of Ludwig von Mises in the title. We continue with his thoughts:

    "Everything brought forward in favour of Socialism during the last hundred years," Mises wrote in 1922, "in thousands of writings and speeches, all the blood which has been spilt by the supporters of Socialism, cannot make Socialism workable. .... Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless -- but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea."
    The fate of the socialist idea being the complete and total failure of socialism every time and every place it has been tried. To that point:

    Undeterred by Mises' criticism, the Soviet Union spent the next seven decades proving his prediction correct. By the time the Communist utopia collapsed in bankruptcy and disgrace, it seemed that everyone with two eyes and a brain understood the lesson: The Marxist-Leninist project was a complete failure and, as historians documented in The Black Book of Communism, tens of millions of people had died for this mistake, deliberately starved or slaughtered by totalitarian Communist governments.
    The people of China walked... no... ran away from Socialism. As soon as they did, they started on the road to being a world super-power.

    The people of Great Britain, seeing that Socialism was not working have moved toward fiscal responsibility. The Scandinavian nations... Norway, Sweden, Finland have begun moving away from their Socialist system... strictly because they can not afford to keep it going. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, threw out the Russians one day and Socialism the next.

    Socialism does not work. It has failed every time it has been tried... The only place outside of university campuses that Socialism remains popular is in the current White House, where Socialism continues: "To Impress The Thoughtless"

    Therefore Socialism remains popular only with those that profit from it (oh the irony) through payment of cash or of power.


    Is there anyone that would care to mount a defense of Socialism?

    Is there anyone that can mount a defense of Socialism?

    The Worst Idea in the World | The American Spectator

  • #2
    Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

    Why does socialism have such appeal to liberals? I believe it's because they "feel" instead of "think." Socialism, where everyone takes care of everyone else sounds so warm and cuddly. The problem is, it completely ignore the nature of man, including liberal man. Liberals profess to be the kind and loving group that cares about the poor and wants them taken care of. They don't however actually want to care for the poor themselves. Socialism fits this paradigm well as they can feel like the poor are taken care of, they have done their part, and they never have to actually talk to or deal with the poor as that would make them feel bad.

    Then comes the problem of paying for this good feeling. The socialist wants those who work the hardest and smartest to pick up the tab for those who don't, won't, or can't. Socialism assumes equal contribution for equal benefit but that is an impossibility. Everyone works for the collective. However, humans have no motivation to work for the collective. Motivation is to work for self. Only when there is forced labor for the collective will some contribute. Under those conditions, the motivated lose motivation because they get no more for their hard work than those who are forced to work.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      Why does socialism have such appeal to liberals? I believe it's because they "feel" instead of "think." Socialism, where everyone takes care of everyone else sounds so warm and cuddly. The problem is, it completely ignore the nature of man, including liberal man. Liberals profess to be the kind and loving group that cares about the poor and wants them taken care of. They don't however actually want to care for the poor themselves. Socialism fits this paradigm well as they can feel like the poor are taken care of, they have done their part, and they never have to actually talk to or deal with the poor as that would make them feel bad.

      Then comes the problem of paying for this good feeling. The socialist wants those who work the hardest and smartest to pick up the tab for those who don't, won't, or can't. Socialism assumes equal contribution for equal benefit but that is an impossibility. Everyone works for the collective. However, humans have no motivation to work for the collective. Motivation is to work for self. Only when there is forced labor for the collective will some contribute. Under those conditions, the motivated lose motivation because they get no more for their hard work than those who are forced to work.
      A lot here to agree with.

      To me, Socialism is a disincentive to excel and a disincentive to work hard as well as a disincentive to work harder than the next guy. If excelling and working harder don't come with a reward, who's going to work harder and excel?

      Socialism is the ideology of mediocrity. Everyone ends up working and contributing equally (or nearly so), in spite of, and to the frustration of, those who would excel and contribute greater.

      Since there will be those in a socialistic society that think other are not working as hard as they do, these are the folks that will end up working less than the rest, causing other to work less as well. It's a downward spiral, as the Soviet's have already demonstrated.

      More worrisome, is that it is the type of attitude and work ethic that appears to be promoted by the present leadership. What was that last CBO report about ObamaCare? That people will end up choosing to work less and get a government subsidy for their healthcare. This is little more but acid to corrode society into the direction of socialism.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

        Where are all of the raging socialists that the right sees behind every tree?

        I don't know of any liberal who wants socialism. Unless Bernie Sanders does.

        The right side sees a social safety net within a capitalistic system as socialism.

        In fact, if the entire society is not a dawinistic jungle, then hey, it's that damn socialism again.

        The gov't ownership of all means of production of goods and services, and its distribution is socialism. And without that fact, it isn't socialism. Because that is the foundation that must be put down, in order for socialism to exist.

        If I recall correctly, socialism is supposed to be a classless society. Yet in those places that tried it, the first thing to arise after the gov't took control of the economy, owned it, was classes, two of them. The haves and the have nots. Humans, after becoming civilized, form into classes, and these classes are as old as civilization, as they arose with civilization.

        Yet man has only been civilized for a few thousand years. What sort of economic system did man have, before becoming civilized? We can of course see what was in place, as there were still primitive people on earth, and may still be a couple in South America, far back in those rain forests. What sort of system did man then have for the 10s of thousands of years prior to civilization? And which obviously worked, or man would not have survived to become civilized later on. What sort of system was in place for that period of not being civilized, which is much longer than the time we have been civilized? Whatever it was, it worked out so well that man survived, even without the rich and the poor. In fact, whatever was used is older than capitalism, much, much older.

        I will leave it up to those that took an anthropology course in school to figure it out. Which may mean that only liberals would know since cons probably see no need in studying humanity, as it gets in the way of their beliefs. LOL.

        IMO socialism has failed because it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism has done so well because it is created by that human nature. And so capitalism is such a much better fit with human nature, as humans are self centered beings, to a great fault, and capitalism appeals to this nature, even uses that nature. So of course it would work out better. A no brainer.

        Of course in the end, both systems were doomed from the get-go. Capitalism will live on as long as the earth gives up its resources, but when we reach the day that resources have been depleted, and we will, what happens to capitalism?

        Some people think that the entire world can one day be middle class, or much of it, but that will only deplete the earth of natural resources quicker. And so capitalism is like a cancer, that ends up destroying itself as the host dies. And unless a few of us can flee the earth, to another planet that we can devile and use up, the capitalists will die out, along with everyone else. Such a fine future humanity has ahead of it!

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          Where are all of the raging socialists that the right sees behind every tree?

          I don't know of any liberal who wants socialism. Unless Bernie Sanders does.

          The right side sees a social safety net within a capitalistic system as socialism.

          In fact, if the entire society is not a dawinistic jungle, then hey, it's that damn socialism again.

          The gov't ownership of all means of production of goods and services, and its distribution is socialism. And without that fact, it isn't socialism. Because that is the foundation that must be put down, in order for socialism to exist.

          If I recall correctly, socialism is supposed to be a classless society. Yet in those places that tried it, the first thing to arise after the gov't took control of the economy, owned it, was classes, two of them. The haves and the have nots. Humans, after becoming civilized, form into classes, and these classes are as old as civilization, as they arose with civilization.

          Yet man has only been civilized for a few thousand years. What sort of economic system did man have, before becoming civilized? We can of course see what was in place, as there were still primitive people on earth, and may still be a couple in South America, far back in those rain forests. What sort of system did man then have for the 10s of thousands of years prior to civilization? And which obviously worked, or man would not have survived to become civilized later on. What sort of system was in place for that period of not being civilized, which is much longer than the time we have been civilized? Whatever it was, it worked out so well that man survived, even without the rich and the poor. In fact, whatever was used is older than capitalism, much, much older.

          I will leave it up to those that took an anthropology course in school to figure it out. Which may mean that only liberals would know since cons probably see no need in studying humanity, as it gets in the way of their beliefs. LOL.

          IMO socialism has failed because it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism has done so well because it is created by that human nature. And so capitalism is such a much better fit with human nature, as humans are self centered beings, to a great fault, and capitalism appeals to this nature, even uses that nature. So of course it would work out better. A no brainer.

          Of course in the end, both systems were doomed from the get-go. Capitalism will live on as long as the earth gives up its resources, but when we reach the day that resources have been depleted, and we will, what happens to capitalism?

          Some people think that the entire world can one day be middle class, or much of it, but that will only deplete the earth of natural resources quicker. And so capitalism is like a cancer, that ends up destroying itself as the host dies. And unless a few of us can flee the earth, to another planet that we can devile and use up, the capitalists will die out, along with everyone else. Such a fine future humanity has ahead of it!
          There are varying degrees of socialism. It is not total or none. When government takes from one and gives to another, that is socialism. It is Marx. From each according to his means to each according to his need.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            Where are all of the raging socialists that the right sees behind every tree?
            On university campuses and writing for Salon.com, at the very least.

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            I don't know of any liberal who wants socialism. Unless Bernie Sanders does.
            Well it is his declared party after all...

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            The right side sees a social safety net within a capitalistic system as socialism.
            This 'social safety net' has become a hammock... again...

            “By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low incomes and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act.”


            Harry Reid is now calling the unemployed and underemployed “free agents”

            Free to vote Democratic... an nothing else.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

              Not this shit again... you guys keep the bullocks liquor store down the street in good business let me tell you.

              There is no defense for utopian socialism, it is a practical impossibility to ever achieve it. Everything else is just a matter of degree.
              Last edited by Sluggo; 02-06-2014, 09:06 AM. Reason: fuckin iPad

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                Reason: fuckin iPad

                (Checking the rules concerning posting while fuckin an iPad)

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                  Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                  Reason: fuckin iPad

                  (Checking the rules concerning posting while fuckin an iPad)
                  ... about that keeping the liquor store in business.

                  Since we have been blessed with iOS7, there is this erratic behavior with spell check where half the time it just corrects before finishing a word, the other half of the time the whole thing goes to sleep. You type in 'ever' and it wants to finish it to 'every'... for no real reason at all never saying one is wrong and the other is right.

                  It is as bad as RMS... thanks to iOS7.

                  Ah, the hell with it... I blame Al Gore and his Internet.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    Where are all of the raging socialists that the right sees behind every tree?

                    I don't know of any liberal who wants socialism. Unless Bernie Sanders does.

                    The right side sees a social safety net within a capitalistic system as socialism.

                    In fact, if the entire society is not a dawinistic jungle, then hey, it's that damn socialism again.

                    The gov't ownership of all means of production of goods and services, and its distribution is socialism. And without that fact, it isn't socialism. Because that is the foundation that must be put down, in order for socialism to exist.

                    If I recall correctly, socialism is supposed to be a classless society. Yet in those places that tried it, the first thing to arise after the gov't took control of the economy, owned it, was classes, two of them. The haves and the have nots. Humans, after becoming civilized, form into classes, and these classes are as old as civilization, as they arose with civilization.

                    Yet man has only been civilized for a few thousand years. What sort of economic system did man have, before becoming civilized? We can of course see what was in place, as there were still primitive people on earth, and may still be a couple in South America, far back in those rain forests. What sort of system did man then have for the 10s of thousands of years prior to civilization? And which obviously worked, or man would not have survived to become civilized later on. What sort of system was in place for that period of not being civilized, which is much longer than the time we have been civilized? Whatever it was, it worked out so well that man survived, even without the rich and the poor. In fact, whatever was used is older than capitalism, much, much older.

                    I will leave it up to those that took an anthropology course in school to figure it out. Which may mean that only liberals would know since cons probably see no need in studying humanity, as it gets in the way of their beliefs. LOL.

                    IMO socialism has failed because it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism has done so well because it is created by that human nature. And so capitalism is such a much better fit with human nature, as humans are self centered beings, to a great fault, and capitalism appeals to this nature, even uses that nature. So of course it would work out better. A no brainer.

                    Of course in the end, both systems were doomed from the get-go. Capitalism will live on as long as the earth gives up its resources, but when we reach the day that resources have been depleted, and we will, what happens to capitalism?

                    Some people think that the entire world can one day be middle class, or much of it, but that will only deplete the earth of natural resources quicker. And so capitalism is like a cancer, that ends up destroying itself as the host dies. And unless a few of us can flee the earth, to another planet that we can devile and use up, the capitalists will die out, along with everyone else. Such a fine future humanity has ahead of it!
                    Where are they? Why don't you read the transcript of Obummers state of the union address? See that part where he quotes marx?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      Yet man has only been civilized for a few thousand years. What sort of economic system did man have, before becoming civilized? We can of course see what was in place, as there were still primitive people on earth, and may still be a couple in South America, far back in those rain forests. What sort of system did man then have for the 10s of thousands of years prior to civilization? And which obviously worked, or man would not have survived to become civilized later on. What sort of system was in place for that period of not being civilized, which is much longer than the time we have been civilized? Whatever it was, it worked out so well that man survived, even without the rich and the poor. In fact, whatever was used is older than capitalism, much, much older.
                      Your point is well taken Blue Doggy, only problem with it is-------------->back then, it was a barter system. Today, we can much more easily acquire assets that can be spent down the road. Instead of people hoarding crops for future use like what was before, we use something called money that holds relative value. We just use that money to replace crops and feed ourselves in the future.

                      Of course, some people don't like the idea that some people acquire the ability to purchase huge amounts of crops down the road, so they want to take that ability from them......probably just like they did under the barter system.......which may have a direct correlation why money was created in the first place.

                      Socialism really does suck you know. I would ask people-------->besides the homeless in this country who are probably there of their own volition.........this whole debate isn't about people working their rearends off 65hrs or 70hrs a week and have no way to keep themselves warm, have a cell phone, (the government gives them one, heeeeeelllllloooooo, Obamaphone) have a TV, be able to get around through public transit or an auto, having stuff to eat, or anything else you might bring up that is necessary.

                      No, what this whole problem is about instead of people needing something, is really about others having to much. It is about ENVY! And I dare say, these people didn't take the other peoples stuff to get in the position they are in at all. It isn't like big business owners said, "I agree to pay you 10, 15, 20 bucks an hr," and then shortchanged these people hrs on their check. What really happened is............. these people agreed to work for x amount of dollars, then got pissed because the owner earned more than the workers thought they should.

                      Labor does dictate the level of their own wages, because if it is not high enough, you don't go to work for the person offering you the job. It is NOT the business owners fault that if you do not take the job, there are 25 others that will at the price point he offered to you.

                      Lookie here-----------> I am just as upset about stagnant wages as you are. I am also not happy; just like you, that a much bigger piece of manufacturing base could be here, but it is not. And yet, I am not wanting to go all socialist trying to fix it. I realize it makes absolutely no sense to dismantle the greatest industrial countries method the world has ever seen, just because we have had two Presidents in a row who can't put one foot in front of the other. We elected these two goofballs, and instead of demanding they do something different, we are gonna go all socialist?!?!?!

                      To me, that is akin to trying to put out a fire, by throwing gasoline on it.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                        Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                        (Placed here for 'political theory')

                        We open with the words of Ludwig von Mises in the title. We continue with his thoughts:



                        The fate of the socialist idea being the complete and total failure of socialism every time and every place it has been tried. To that point:



                        The people of China walked... no... ran away from Socialism. As soon as they did, they started on the road to being a world super-power.

                        The people of Great Britain, seeing that Socialism was not working have moved toward fiscal responsibility. The Scandinavian nations... Norway, Sweden, Finland have begun moving away from their Socialist system... strictly because they can not afford to keep it going. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, threw out the Russians one day and Socialism the next.

                        Socialism does not work. It has failed every time it has been tried... The only place outside of university campuses that Socialism remains popular is in the current White House, where Socialism continues: "To Impress The Thoughtless"

                        Therefore Socialism remains popular only with those that profit from it (oh the irony) through payment of cash or of power.


                        Is there anyone that would care to mount a defense of Socialism?

                        Is there anyone that can mount a defense of Socialism?

                        The Worst Idea in the World | The American Spectator
                        It's always very helpful to fully understand the source of one's argument; that includes the medium from which the source is referenced to frame a thesis.

                        When one considers poltical theory; as we have been asked to do in the OP, the politics of said theories must be clearly understood before an intelligent discussion can be had.

                        I have often said here that socialism as fixed concept of government will never ever work in this country for two reasons: it came after the founding documents and it is not an American idea. This does not mean of course that liberalism is in any way tied to socialsim in an real sense other than as a political agenda. Though like myself, Ludwig Von Mises disliked and distrusted scoailism. Socialism however was only a tool: a popular word that described a utopian idea that was hijacked by totalitarians who were actually exteme right-wing demigods.

                        Liberalism is a completely different poltical theory; one that founded this country.

                        Mises explains liberalism thus:


                        From The Ludwig Von Mises Institute:
                        "The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."

                        http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp

                        brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life.

                        Liberalism is not a completed doctrine or a fixed dogma.

                        Nor did this prosperity flow only to a select class of privileged persons. On the eve of the World War the worker in the industrial nations of Europe, in the United States, and in the overseas dominions of England lived better and more graciously than the nobleman of not too long before. Not only could he eat and drink according to his desire; he could give his children a better education; he could, if he wished, take part in the intellectual and cultural life of his nation; and, if he possessed enough talent and energy, he could, without difficulty, raise his social position. It was precisely in the countries that had gone the farthest in adopting the liberal program that the top of the social pyramid was composed, in the main, not of those who had, from their very birth, enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of the wealth or high rank of their parents, but of those who, under favorable conditions, had worked their way up from straitened circumstances by their own power. The barriers that had in earlier ages separated lords and serfs had fallen. Now there were only citizens with equal rights. No one was handicapped or persecuted on account of his nationality, his opinions, or his faith. Domestic Political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent. Optimists were already hailing the dawn of the age of eternal peace.
                        Mises is an excellent source that shows exactly how the conservative political agenda has indeed hijacked the concept and progress of liberal poltical theory and reformed it into higherarcheal structure that we now see, as referenced, as the 1%.
                        He demonstrates how the United States was and still is a fabulous extention of the liberal ideal.
                        Last edited by jet57; 02-06-2014, 11:57 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          Where are all of the raging socialists that the right sees behind every tree?

                          I don't know of any liberal who wants socialism. Unless Bernie Sanders does.

                          The right side sees a social safety net within a capitalistic system as socialism.

                          In fact, if the entire society is not a dawinistic jungle, then hey, it's that damn socialism again.

                          The gov't ownership of all means of production of goods and services, and its distribution is socialism. And without that fact, it isn't socialism. Because that is the foundation that must be put down, in order for socialism to exist.

                          If I recall correctly, socialism is supposed to be a classless society. Yet in those places that tried it, the first thing to arise after the gov't took control of the economy, owned it, was classes, two of them. The haves and the have nots. Humans, after becoming civilized, form into classes, and these classes are as old as civilization, as they arose with civilization.

                          Yet man has only been civilized for a few thousand years. What sort of economic system did man have, before becoming civilized? We can of course see what was in place, as there were still primitive people on earth, and may still be a couple in South America, far back in those rain forests. What sort of system did man then have for the 10s of thousands of years prior to civilization? And which obviously worked, or man would not have survived to become civilized later on. What sort of system was in place for that period of not being civilized, which is much longer than the time we have been civilized? Whatever it was, it worked out so well that man survived, even without the rich and the poor. In fact, whatever was used is older than capitalism, much, much older.

                          I will leave it up to those that took an anthropology course in school to figure it out. Which may mean that only liberals would know since cons probably see no need in studying humanity, as it gets in the way of their beliefs. LOL.

                          IMO socialism has failed because it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism has done so well because it is created by that human nature. And so capitalism is such a much better fit with human nature, as humans are self centered beings, to a great fault, and capitalism appeals to this nature, even uses that nature. So of course it would work out better. A no brainer.

                          Of course in the end, both systems were doomed from the get-go. Capitalism will live on as long as the earth gives up its resources, but when we reach the day that resources have been depleted, and we will, what happens to capitalism?

                          Some people think that the entire world can one day be middle class, or much of it, but that will only deplete the earth of natural resources quicker. And so capitalism is like a cancer, that ends up destroying itself as the host dies. And unless a few of us can flee the earth, to another planet that we can devile and use up, the capitalists will die out, along with everyone else. Such a fine future humanity has ahead of it!
                          No, a "social safety" net is not all they want. They have just proven that this week with their response to the CBO report about how Obamacare will create incentives for people who HAVE jobs to leave them due to the subsidies they are receiving (at the expense of other WORKING people through forceable taxation by government). This is a great thing we are told, that these people will be liberated (at the expense of actual hard working people) to "follow their passion".

                          That is not a safety net.

                          We have a party in this country whose basic platform is 50% +1 of the voters are downtrodden, exploited, and powerless at the hands of others and government is going to take away from the others and give to the 50% +1 to make it faaaaaiiiiirrrrr.

                          We have another party that believes if YOU work hard and are a law abiding citizen (or legal resident) nobody OWES you anything but you should first and foremost be able to keep what YOU have earned, and that society's only claim on it through taxation is for a very limited set of enumerated legitimate functinos of government (none of which involve taking your earnings away to subsidize other's life choices).

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                            Blue Doggy
                            IMO socialism has failed because it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism has done so well because it is created by that human nature. And so capitalism is such a much better fit with human nature, as humans are self centered beings, to a great fault, and capitalism appeals to this nature, even uses that nature. So of course it would work out better. A no brainer.

                            Of course in the end, both systems were doomed from the get-go. Capitalism will live on as long as the earth gives up its resources, but when we reach the day that resources have been depleted, and we will, what happens to capitalism?

                            You're wrong, Socialism is more a reflection of selfishness and the darker sides of human nature in its implimentation than Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system compatible with individual freedom and liberty in the long run. Socialism, however noble its INTENT will always fail, and will always require the supression of individual freedom and liberty to even attempt to implement.

                            Take just a very small slide of our economic life today, health care. Government, in order to "manage costs" arbitrarily sets Medicaid reimbursement rates very low. As a result, many doctors are simply choosing not to accept Medicaid patients. The same is happening to a lesser, but no less meaningful, extent with Medicare. As a result, you have people whose existing policies are having the aforementioned unintended consequences wanting to step in and FORCE doctor's to accept a certain percentage of medicare and mediaid patients as a condition of being licensed at all. When the unintended (yet painfully predictable to any economically literate non-liberal) consequence of that little bit of soft tyranny occurs -- more Doctor's leaving the profession, fewer entering the profession, or going into specialties that are far less tied to government interference (explain to me why it is that there are virtually no waiting times for elective cosmetic surgery, it is a thriving industry, and costs have come down over the last three decades when very few if any insurance companies cover it, and government has no programs to help you pay for it?).

                            That said, let's also consider how, from an objective and rational perspective the respective reimbursement rates for medicaid and medicare are. If we were being strictly egalitarian, one would have to conclude that it is immoral for the government to value the treatment of one group it is paying the medical costs of (the poor - Medicaid) LESS than it values the same treatments given to another group it is paying the medical costs of (the elderly - Medicare). If we were being a bit more rational and discerning, you could certainly make the case that the treatment of different individuals being valued differently because of the return on the investment, but here, it would make the case for valuing a treatment for a younger poor person (who has far more years ahead to contribute to society) than an older person (who has fewer years in general). So, how do we explain that the ACTUAL policy is neither egalitarian, or supported by a rational assessment of the relative cost/benefit to society? Because the resources are being allocated by the state and politics becomes the overriding concern. The benefits flow far more generously to the politically powerful than based on any sensible policy rationale.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: &quot;To Impress The Thoughtless&quot;

                              Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                              No, a "social safety" net is not all they want. They have just proven that this week with their response to the CBO report about how Obamacare will create incentives for people who HAVE jobs to leave them due to the subsidies they are receiving (at the expense of other WORKING people through forceable taxation by government). This is a great thing we are told, that these people will be liberated (at the expense of actual hard working people) to "follow their passion".

                              That is not a safety net.

                              We have a party in this country whose basic platform is 50% +1 of the voters are downtrodden, exploited, and powerless at the hands of others and government is going to take away from the others and give to the 50% +1 to make it faaaaaiiiiirrrrr.

                              We have another party that believes if YOU work hard and are a law abiding citizen (or legal resident) nobody OWES you anything but you should first and foremost be able to keep what YOU have earned, and that society's only claim on it through taxation is for a very limited set of enumerated legitimate functinos of government (none of which involve taking your earnings away to subsidize other's life choices).
                              You are right. It's not a social safety net. It's a social exploitation net cast on those that work hard. Yet another disincentive to work hard. How insidious!

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X