magekillr

Other peaceful revolutions with no guns needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_revolution

Speaking of that court case, read the dissenting opinion. It agrees with me. I wouldn't call it a moot point at all, just that we have a lot of assclowns like Scalia on the bench.

The next thing that you're going to tell me is that there is no such thing as separation of powers or checks and balances :roll: #-o :wall: No, the Democrats are just as liberal as every right wing conservative party around the developed world. I think the Republicans should move to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or India. They would fare much better over there with their twisted backwards views.

Ban them; ban every single gun that there is. Repeal the 2nd amendment, and get rid of this controversy that citizens supposedly have a god-given right to own a firearm, because they don't. They "did" when the US was armed with a militia, and you were a part of said militia (take present day Switzerland for example). We no longer have a militia, the 2nd amendment no longer has a purpose. Ban the guns, repeal the amendment.

Texas Tech? They would get slaughtered. Depending on the Bama game, I'd rather it be Florida and Oklahoma. I want to see how Florida fares against Bama though.

Pecan pie. I'll probably eat half of one :S Then I shan't have dessert for the rest of the year :-#

What garbage. Florida should be in the title...they beat everyone by like 50 points every game, and they're in a difficult conference. Screw Alabama and Texas.

Consenting sex between two individuals where money is involved, and sex between a flailing person that does not give their consent, and is forced to have sexual relations, typically by violence with no money involved...are HARDLY the same. They're the same in that they involve sex, and that's it.

Even better. Single guy on vacation, brothel could be perfect. Please, to even compare the two is ridiculous, and you know it :roll:

Not necessarily... Like back in the old days when there were prostitutes everywhere out in the open, men on long trips through let's say France would take in a mistress while he's at his hotel. It was pretty common, and it wasn't necessarily because he couldn't get a woman lol. Oh, and obviously I think it should be legal. I don't think it's an immoral act...it's just sex for christ's sake.

YES! That's exactly it. It's not even the material itself, it's just that they see all of these rappers "making it", and then think they can just be a rapper and don't need school. It's a lack of role models. There was Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods for a while, but again, athletes #-o . I remember talking to one of my black friends that's a mechanical engineer. He says that when he's in the community back home, a lot of the blacks that are REALLY smart act "stupid" and "ignorant" to fit in with the group. Like, if they act smart for some reason they're "betraying" their community :wall:

Yes, the McCain campaign strategy sucked, but they were in a bad spot, I can't really blame them for putting out those ads and such. Yeah, a lot of people believed in that stuff, but the same goes for the other side. THEY BOTH DO IT. And what's the difference between "stupid" and "they rely on ignorance and stupidity for votes, and encourage anti-intellectualism." -.- Because without those voters, the Republican party would be dead. Sure, there's some of it on both sides, but the Republican party thrives on it. Not only that, but they actively encourage this sort of behavior. "Oh that guy's not like you at all...he is snobbish and thinks you're all just a bunch of idiots. Vote for me, an average every day Joe!" Ronald Reagan was probably the biggest anti-intellectual president we have ever had, he even beats out Bush in my opinion. Here you go: Articulate? Yeah right...

I didn't call the Republican Party stupid. I said they rely on ignorance and stupidity for votes, and encourage anti-intellectualism. Here is what I mean, specifically:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/busine ... ay.cut.cnn THIS is what our CEO's need to learn!

It's an American phenomena where the athletes and rappers are worshiped, yet the people feel rebellious towards scientists and mathematicians. It's a lack of role models, or rather, a clouded judgment of who should be a role model. That is one of the reasons I think it could be reasonable to vote for Obama based on race. The black community doesn't have many role models or people to aspire to. BET is the most pathetic piece of television garbage, and it even tops MTV and VH1. All of the black people I know despise BET for what it does to their community, and I couldn't agree more. It's horrible. However with Obama elected, maybe they can see a ray of hope with someone they can look up to that likes to read. I know in Asian countries it's not the best looking or most athletic that are the most popular, but it's the smartest people that are looked to as the most popular. Being smart in America is not a good thing. It's the anti-intellectualism that fuels the Republican Party. Gone are the days of intelligent conservatives like William Buckley. Instead we're stuck with your average "Joe Six Pack" Sarah Palin as important people in the party. It's hating on people because they're "elitist" (which elitist in this context means smarter than average with a brilliant mind). Professing to want leaders "just like you" is indeed anti-intellectualism, and it shows a bad mark in our culture. I want someone so much smarter than I that I don't even know what the hell they're talking about unless they have to "stoop down to my level". I don't take offense to it, but many do.

Hey, I never said it was not possible, I just said that most people on here arguing against higher taxes/welfare have never been in those situations themselves. I am very much aware that it's possible, very possible actually, but there are factors rendering it very difficult and sometimes not possible. Let's take for example a person growing up in poverty. Chances are if they're in poverty, that their elementary and secondary education sucks to begin with. They're already put at a loss by having a bad experience in academia, which could do a number of things: 1.) Turn them off from learning 2.) Make them believe it's not possible to change it 3.) Lack of role models 4.) Crap education...so essentially their brains weren't stimulated as much 5.) Bad environment, leading to bad friendships, leading to worse choices I mean, the public schools in Philadelphia have metal detectors for Christ's sake! Like I said, I could make time to work, but I choose to volunteer/help the community instead. I do not look at college as a place to get a diploma, but a place where responsibilities should be lower so you can express yourself in ways you never thought possible while under the whim of your parents/upbringing, to learn who you are as a person. I'm certainly not lazy, but I know I don't want to be working all of the time to just to "get by"; what kind of life is that? Orly? http://www.acenet.edu/Content/Navigatio ... Prices.htm That's per semester, and it doesn't include fees, books, room, or board. Will you please back up your ridiculous claims with evidence, other than the fact that you were obviously born with a silver spoon in your mouth covered in a blanket of ignorance to the world around you? edit: btw, that's 2003...so the cost has gone up by at least 10-20%. I know my tuition went up 10.2%? from last year. Maybe it was 11. Nonetheless, it went up by a minimum of 10% since the 2007-2008 school year.

It's like you're incapable of reading or something. Quoi just said that, I posted a rebuttal, and you repeat the same talking point with no new analysis? 1.) No it's not 2.) I like how you said "most", meaning there are some states where it is expensive 3.) I have a new rebuttal on top of the one I previously made: I already go to class for 15 hours a week, which is pretty small compared to my usual semesters. In order to graduate on time, I need to take on average 16 hours every semester. 16 hours. My teacher believes for every credit hour you have, you should work 3 hours outside of class each week for that hour. So, 16*3 = 48 hours of course work each week outside of class. 48+16 = 64 hours. Where would I find time to work when I'm already working 64 hours to begin with? Granted, it's possible to do, but my grades would be much lower...and there's more to life than "working", especially in college. College should be a time where your financial responsibilities are lower to find out who you are as a person, not a place to get a piece of paper and a job. There's a lot more learning to be had than just in the classroom, and busing tables.

Yup, it would. Too bad that's NOT the case. If it were, there would be nearly no one in poverty. You're telling me that homeless veterans didn't work hard? Many of them are suffering from medical illnesses, and the US just leaves them there untreated since the '70's. What's the highest cause of bankruptcy in the US? Health care bills. Are you to tell me those people didn't work hard? A lot of insurers won't accept you if you had a pre-existing condition. You might not have even had a pre-existing condition; it could have just been something you wrote down on a medical record that perhaps is interpreted as "pre-existing". They pay people to scour your medical records finding ONE mistake you may have made, and then drop you like it's hot.

That depends completely on your major, and your location. That option was not available to me as an engineering major because I needed to go to a 4 year school right away, or else it would take me forever to graduate. It's already going to take 5 years, and if I went to a community college for the first 2 years it would take 6, 7, or possibly even 8. Why? Because I have to take classes not offered at community college that I must take, I must take pre-requisites to take others, and some classes are only offered one semester. Lastly, given the current financial turmoil, I can't get a loan next semester even with a co-signer that has paid off their house.

It's easy, huh? Social experiment: when you're 18, I want you to go to college and refuse any help from your parents. I want you to deny their money, deny their signatures for loans (given your political beliefs I can safely say that they have the cash just waiting for you anyway), and go to college without any help. Let's see you last, because I can bet you wouldn't even last a year. Frankly, you wouldn't last 5 minutes because you couldn't even go to school without a person that has good credit co-signing your loan. Tell me how they can break out of poverty, and how it is "easy". I'd love to know.

I don't know how I missed this little gem, but let me explain to you why this is not applicable to the real world, why it's a horrible analogy, and allow me to bring you to understand what we advocate (hopefully?). Why this is a bad analogy: 1.) Sally and Mary both have the same access to the same standards. Barring that the teacher has a grudge on one or the other (or he/she is being paid off) they can both start out with a 100% average. 2.) They have equal opportunities to get extra help from the teacher if it's needed. Office hours are available to both of them, neither has to pay for the extra help. Teacher's assistants are available as well, and they can talk to their peers if they need help. 3.) Both of them were clearly qualified to attend the school given that they got accepted to the University...so even if one might be more gifted than the other, it shouldn't be a stifling difference to the point where their grade disparities are that high (unless one didn't work). Why it is not applicable to the real world: How one can compare grades to wealth is beyond me, but I guess people arguing against socialism need to resort to Mises Institute of Austrian School articles, youtube videos, and ridiculously simple "examples" to get their points across. In the real world, people are not started off on an even playing field; some are born into wealth, others into poverty. In the real world, working hard does not translate into wealth, and come to think of it...I don't even know wtf "working hard" even means! Are you telling me that an Aerospace Engineer (my profession) works any harder than say, a waitress working 60 hours a week (if her restaurant would so graciously give her that many hours, I would venture to guess it'd be impossible at any one restaurant)? How do you define hard work? How many hours someone puts in? How difficult their job is? That waitress could be a harder worker than I am for all I know, and I am probably going to make 4 times what she makes in 66% of the time. Is my job harder? Yeah, but that doesn't mean she didn't work hard. She could have busted her [wagon], and worked twice as hard as I did; in fact I'd say she probably would. However, despite working hard, waitresses make roughly $20,000 a year. I'd like to see you pay for your bills, your car insurance, your medical bills/insurance, your child (if she had one), clothes, food, etc etc etc with just $20,000 a year. That's barely above the poverty line, and if it's in an area that costs more to live in than others, she's out of luck in your mind. "Why doesn't she move?" It's not that simple to simply "relocate" out of the blue because you can no longer afford a particular area. Sure, you should work towards it, but it takes a lot of time. First you have to secure a job in the area you plan on moving to, and then you have to secure a residence. She could be locked in an apartment lease, and cannot leave until it's over. Traveling costs, taking children out of school....it's not easy. This example you used would only be applicable if you compare it to taking multiple choice tests, however, the application would favor my argument and not yours. What if someone taking the test got a 100% on it, didn't work hard, but just flat out guessed and got lucky? That happens a lot in the real world, for sure. People are lucky. Joe the Plumber...who the [bleep] is Joe the Plumber? No one knew until he asked Obama a question (planted by McCain), and got media attention. Now this criminal--yes he is a criminal--could possibly get a book deal, a country singing deal, and he's got a publicist. What about the struggling author who is truly talented, or the musician just looking for a break? Wtf did Joe the Plumber do? He's certainly not out there "working hard" twanging on a guitar in your local pub for $50 a gig. He's not writing Op-Eds in attempts to get recognized. He was hand picked by Lady Luck to be given the media spotlight, and share the stage with McCain because of a question he asked. The man owes the IRS money, has a suspended driver's license because he has $700 in unpaid parking/speeding tickets, he lied on national television about possibly buying a business that his supposed boss was never selling, and he illegally practiced plumbing as he is not a licensed plumber (if he is a plumber, that is). That's what Americans want to aspire to? Some criminal assclown that happened to be lucky? What an Applicable Example Would Look Like: If you truly wanted to compare schooling and economics, you could have said: Should an English major pay the same rate of tuition as an engineer? English majors require relatively no infrastructure in the school to get their degrees, but engineers require labs, wind tunnels, and expensive equipment. Then you could look at the benefits of a system where everyone pays in, everyone gets out, and we have a healthy and stable society. I would argue that yes, they all should pay the same rate (I'll argue this another time, if you happen to pick my much more applicable example to argue your points). What We Truly Advocate: An even playing field, plain and simple. I don't know how it's so hard to understand that most people in life were born on third base, and they thought that they hit a triple.

Nothing :roll:

I'll contribute more to this later, but first: edit: grrr...type in youtube: CNN - Obama on socialism attacks, click the first one. What capitalists advocate is that, despite how much you want this man to succeed and be appreciated, there's really nothing you can do but hope that others feel that they can succeed, and will have the will power to make it on their own. That's all they advocate: "you're on your own, I wish I could help you, but I have my own desires to succeed and it's not my fault that you don't have the same amount of ability to make it like I do, and weren't given the same opportunities." College students in general tend to be "idealistic", but most people in America, just flat out don't understand socialistic policy due to McCarthy and the Red Scare. You say "Is there any economic plan for people in general to be cared for, while still having the ability to make it above someone else if one works hard?", and it's sitting right there in socialist democracy, and the capitalists dismiss it. People don't seem to like taxes in America, people like my Dad included. They're afraid of a government becoming too powerful, and I can understand this fear. However, the way America is set up, I do not think we should fear an "end all be all" government; it's simply not possible in a realistic view point for it to happen. They also don't think it's fair for the government to be the one dispersing the wealth, "Is that fair for the government to do that?" Well, who says it's fair for the corporations to do that? At least with government, we elect and choose our officials; they represent us. The corporations represent their stock holders, and will almost always do what is in the best interest of the company. If that just so happens to benefit the people, then great. If not, well too bad. This is why I feel a government levying the taxes, and directing where the wealth goes is a much better idea: they have accountability on the voters. If we don't like them, we don't elect them again. One thing that needs to happen inside Washington outside of elected officials, however, is a mass form of "accountability". As of right now, we have useless departments because people simply cannot get fired unless they punched their boss in the face. If there was new management in how things were done, and people worked like they would in a company (where if they [bleep]ed around, they'd be fired), then we would be all set. So herein lies the conundrum: how do we bring the poor closer to the rich, without totally creating a Nanny state, and without encouraging greed? I mean, granted, there will ALWAYS be poor and rich in every society unless it's a Communist Utopia...which as we all know 1.) can't happen, and 2.) I personally would not like for it to happen. I would not like for that to happen because as much as I want everyone to be equal, I'm aware that not everyone is willing to put in the same effort, and I don't believe hard work is rewarded through Communism; there's no way of getting ahead. This leads to eventual "work just hard enough to not get fired" mindsets, and it's not healthy for progress or society. However, even though there will always be disparity between the rich and the poor, it is and will always continue to be, a large distance in America. If you took a city like Baltimore, and looked at their poor, and then took a city like Paris, and looked at their poor, you would see a much greater difference. The poor in Paris are still poor, sure, but their quality of life is much greater. They have access to medicine, and education, and shelter, and even food...and vacation times. They're still poor, but they still have access and their quality of life is much greater. People in Baltimore are not so lucky, and they're completely on their own. This is a common misconception about socialism: that you somehow still can't be rich, and that your hard work is not rewarded. My dad has this misconception...when he thinks socialism, he thinks Russia and China, which are not socialist states whatsoever. If I told him Germany was a socialist state, he probably would not believe me. It's very possible to be rich in socialism, just as it is possible to be poor. The difference is, the poor and middle class have better qualities of life, at the expense of some of the riches' wealth. It's like owning 10 houses and 5 cars with capitalism, and owning 7 houses and 3 cars with socialism; the only difference is that with capitalism there is a sheer vanity and greed for more that is never ending. Why the need for so much? Just because you can? Just because you want? I mean if you take most rich people, they're not rich because of the businesses they own, but because of their assets and investments. Yet, Canada has a 50% capital gains tax...and yet, there's rich no? Germany has 0% capital gains tax under many circumstances, but gets as high as 28%. Iceland, probably the most socialist country on earth, has 0% capital gains tax...0%. I mean, some people might not think it's fair for the rich to be taxed in greater numbers than the poor, and maybe they're right. However, I do not think just because something is fair, means that it is right. I think it's disgusting to see a gold plated Porsche, and I see my Aunt without access to health care; a woman who hasn't seen a doctor in over 7 years because she can't afford to. I think it's disgusting to see our troops serving this country with all their heart and soul, to return home to people metaphorically spitting on them by not giving them treatment for their PTSD or wounds, or a house to sleep in, or food to eat. I think it's disgusting to see myself be taxed 23%, a person who can't afford school or food or laundry who works 12 hours a day of hard work every day, and see someone like Warren Buffet be taxed 17% of his assets because of loopholes that are easily exploited. Socialism in a socialist democracy can be mixed with capitalism...and I see the two converging to the middle to be a far better way for the citizens. What is the point of a booming economy, if 90-95% of its citizens who lay toil to the work everyday reap none of the rewards? You can look at GDP and your economy all day long. Let's say your country has the greatest economy. Now, how are the lives of its citizens? If their lives are not being lived happily, what the hell is the point of such a great economy? So a few rich [wagon] can sit at home doing nothing while Wall Street increases their assets, venturing out on rich-filled vacations full of [cabbage] that really does not matter, or should not matter at least, while hard working Americans work 8-16 hours every day for minimum wage, receive no benefits, and go home hungry with no access to education or health care? No, I'm sorry, I cannot bear or be a part of a system that is so corrupt that it would rather see its economy booming to the point that it can control the world, leaving a few people very rich, while the rest of the country suffers. That is why I am a socialist, and that is why I am a liberal.

Or it could be that banks in general are tanking? I'm a good investment for a bank to make for a student loan, but alas, I cannot get one for the next semester; no student can.