The whole Iraq War thing is hugely subjective anyway, and there's no real consensus on either end of the political spectrum.

 

 

 

Interventionism isn't bad so long as it's justified, and I think it's plain to see that attacking Iraq was not justified, especially the way that the case for war was presented to the public (re: 45 minute claim). The way we behaved afterwards hasn't covered us in glory either. Allowing Saddam to be executed after a "fair" trial everyone knew the result of before it had even begun. Destroying the nation's infrastructure, meaning many were left without power or water. Aggressively pursuing terrorists inside the country with little empathy for the civilians caught in the middle.

 

 

 

If you asked me whether I supported troops going into Zimbabwe on the agreement of the UN though, I'd say yes. Same with the Sudan conflict. There are thousands of innocent civilians being killed in those areas for no apparent reason other than they're in the middle of the crossfire. It's disgusting, and for Mugabe to sit there and claim he's a Marxist would be like Hitler claiming he's a social conservative.

Maybe America wouldn't be such a hole if you guys weren't so allergic to taxes.

 

 

 

It's the "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" culture.

 

 

 

I've spoken to countless people both irl and online who believe things like this.

 

 

 

What these rich guys don't realise is that it is extremely hard to get out of poverty, especially when you have to pay for healthcare etc. If you don't have a decent education it's practically impossible to get a good job, and you can't get a decent education if you have to work 7 days a week to support your family. Basically the term "wage slavery" applies.

 

 

 

And yes, some people will mooch off the system. It is inevitable. But that is the price you have to pay if you want people born into poverty to have a chance of having a good life. It's as if you were at a barbeque and everyone was starving, and one guy had all the food on his plate yet refused to give any of it away.

The whole Iraq War thing is hugely subjective anyway, and there's no real consensus on either end of the political spectrum.

 

 

 

Interventionism isn't bad so long as it's justified, and I think it's plain to see that attacking Iraq was not justified, especially the way that the case for war was presented to the public (re: 45 minute claim). The way we behaved afterwards hasn't covered us in glory either. Allowing Saddam to be executed after a "fair" trial everyone knew the result of before it had even begun. Destroying the nation's infrastructure, meaning many were left without power or water. Aggressively pursuing terrorists inside the country with little empathy for the civilians caught in the middle.

 

 

 

If you asked me whether I supported troops going into Zimbabwe on the agreement of the UN though, I'd say yes. Same with the Sudan conflict. There are thousands of innocent civilians being killed in those areas for no apparent reason other than they're in the middle of the crossfire. It's disgusting, and for Mugabe to sit there and claim he's a Marxist would be like Hitler claiming he's a social conservative.

 

 

 

Precisely, well said, I am in agreement with everything stated. I still thought it was a disgrace to execute him, but what made it worse is they publicized it. The parts in bold are key because those happenings allow more recruitment to happen. There's essentially 3 major causes of terrorism: extremism in the name of Islam (which is a new phenomenon (much like the spread of Evangelical Christianity), and hasn't been happening for "thousands of years" like people attempt to make it out to be), poverty/destroyed infrastructure/lack of education/lack of water/lack of food, lack of civil rights whereby the only way to get recognized for the cause is extremism.

 

 

 

Oh sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I see where you're going with the reasons, Iguess I mistook your original post. I guess I what I should have meant is, by comparing the figures, how could one be a success and not the other.

 

 

 

How could I possibly have misunderstood? Comparing the figures? How about, we didn't need to spend any money, nor have any soldiers killed, nor destroy any infrastructure/citizens, nor allow for al Qaeda to make way in the country if we hadn't invaded on a hunch with evidence that was manipulated by the Office of Special Plans. I explained to you why the Iraq War has been a failure, regardless if you agree with the invasion or not.

Personally, I think that the whole system of modern Democracy is wrong. Firstly, if a party wins an election, they should gain every seat in the Government; they should not gain a number of seats proportionate to their number of votes, as this would make passing laws quickr and more efficiant.

 

 

 

Secondly, there should be some form of screening to ensure that people who are of low intelligence or are very biased would not vote; only those who could be trusted to make an informed decision and not vote for someone because of their personality would be allowed to; I don't know how this would work though.

 

 

 

Thirdly, the freedom of the press should be limited to constructive criticism: only complaints that also made suggestions would be allowed, as pointless complaining is both hypocritical and de-establishmental (real word?...).

 

 

 

And finally, religion should not be taught in schools in any form; in my opinion, religion warps peoples' minds.

 

 

 

No.. stupid people should be allowed to vote.

 

 

 

As should prisoners..

 

 

 

Well, I think that, idealy, people shouldn't vote, as making decisions of that magnitude requires significant mental capacity, which many people don't have; and because if everyone votes on the Government, the Government have to do what the people want, not what they need .

 

 

 

Unfortunatley, though, power corrupts, and a Government that wasn't at least influenced by the people would act in a way not beneficial to the country. I think that the ability to vote should be earnt.

Just reading the first post: I'm conservative \

@Zonorhc

 

 

 

Some people dislike making money, and then having most of it being deucted to make little fun clubs, and rehab for all the idiots stupid enough to waste their chance.

 

 

 

Not that that is my complete opinion, i know that some taxes are obviously nessecary.

 

 

 

I'd also like to say that the European countries aren't exactly perfect either. No need to waste the USA.

 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise, I am very liberal.

 

;)

@Zonorhc

 

 

 

Some people dislike making money, and then having most of it being deucted to make little fun clubs, and rehab for all the idiots stupid enough to waste their chance.

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726 Read please.

 

 

 

Oh, and something I didn't say there, people who smoke/drink pay more taxes in quite a few countries for just that reason.

Some people dislike making money, and then having most of it being deucted to make little fun clubs, and rehab for all the idiots stupid enough to waste their chance.

 

Most of their money? How much do they bloody have? Moreover, how did they not get there without some assistance along the way?

Firstly, if you'd care to read the latter half of my post I believe you'd clarify this.

 

 

 

And English people CERTAINLY drink as much as Americans. It's funny how you think yourselves completely devoid of fault, it's incredibly arrogant and pathetic.

You mean this half?

 

Otherwise, I am very liberal.

 

So... we're best mates now?

 

 

 

And English people CERTAINLY drink as much as Americans. It's funny how you think yourselves completely devoid of fault, it's incredibly arrogant and pathetic.

 

Oh look! Outside! It's a strawman!

Sorry, i really hoped you would be able to understand something this simple - I agree that some taxes are nessecary. I understand that all people deserve certain things, rates, whatever. But I simply think that the tax rate shouldn't be raised.

 

 

 

Again, you make yourself sound more and more arrogant every single time you post. You obviously live in an utopia, and we live in a dung pit. I am so sorry we are not as perfect as you.

 

 

 

Here is a small example of what I think. Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

Sorry, i really hoped you would be able to understand something this simple - I agree that some taxes are nessecary. I understand that all people deserve certain things, rates, whatever. But I simply think that the tax rate shouldn't be raised.

 

 

 

Again, you make yourself sound more and more arrogant every single time you post. You obviously live in an utopia, and we live in a dung pit. I am so sorry we are not as perfect as you.

 

 

 

Here is a small example of what I think. Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

 

 

 

Look, the UK isn't perfect. Ginger isn't saying that it is. If you think that Ginger thinks the UK is perfect, then you obviously haven't read his posts.

 

 

 

You're making a terrible mistake with that analogy. Why do you assume that it is the fault of the poor person that they are poor? For some, this is the case. But the vast majority of poor people are born poor, and the thing about poverty is that it is like a cycle. You've obviously never been poor (don't pretend like you have, because you clearly haven't. If you think that poverty is always the fault of the person, you're full of crap.) so I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's just - with wage slavery, having to pay for ridiculous healthcare bills you can't afford, it really is impossible for people in countries like the USA to escape it. Some will manage it, yes. They're the lucky ones. I'm just thankful I live in a country with a population sensible enough to have the NHS.

See, in America, anyone can make a good living. Poor people can still go to public school for free, and if they apply themsleves, they can easily get a scholarship to a small state school or a community college if they don't. Either way they set themselves up in a position to succeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, our doctors are 100 million times better than yours. The dcotors in our country strive to succees; to be the best. Because of the constant compitetion, I have the oppurtunity to pay for the best doctors in the best places. You, on the contrary, do not. We also have these awesome things called free clinics. They are free. Of course, if they have some incredible disease, yes, they are f'd. But what, 10% max? are in that condition.

 

 

 

And Ginger, i'm not trying to start a war or w/e, so if i come off like i am, sorry :

Sorry, i really hoped you would be able to understand something this simple - I agree that some taxes are nessecary. I understand that all people deserve certain things, rates, whatever. But I simply think that the tax rate shouldn't be raised.

 

 

 

Again, you make yourself sound more and more arrogant every single time you post. You obviously live in an utopia, and we live in a dung pit. I am so sorry we are not as perfect as you.

 

 

 

Here is a small example of what I think. Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

 

 

 

Look, the UK isn't perfect. Ginger isn't saying that it is. If you think that Ginger thinks the UK is perfect, then you obviously haven't read his posts.

 

 

 

You're making a terrible mistake with that analogy. Why do you assume that it is the fault of the poor person that they are poor? For some, this is the case. But the vast majority of poor people are born poor, and the thing about poverty is that it is like a cycle. You've obviously never been poor (don't pretend like you have, because you clearly haven't. If you think that poverty is always the fault of the person, you're full of crap.) so I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's just - with wage slavery, having to pay for ridiculous healthcare bills you can't afford, it really is impossible for people in countries like the USA to escape it. Some will manage it, yes. They're the lucky ones. I'm just thankful I live in a country with a population sensible enough to have the NHS.

 

 

 

That's ridiculous. You make it sound like no poor people have health insurance and everyone needs $300,000 heart bypasses. Pretty much if you have a full time job job you have health insurance. Only like 15% of people or something don't have some type of health insurance.

Sorry, i really hoped you would be able to understand something this simple - I agree that some taxes are nessecary. I understand that all people deserve certain things, rates, whatever. But I simply think that the tax rate shouldn't be raised.

 

 

 

Again, you make yourself sound more and more arrogant every single time you post. You obviously live in an utopia, and we live in a dung pit. I am so sorry we are not as perfect as you.

 

 

 

Here is a small example of what I think. Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

 

 

 

Look, the UK isn't perfect. Ginger isn't saying that it is. If you think that Ginger thinks the UK is perfect, then you obviously haven't read his posts.

 

 

 

You're making a terrible mistake with that analogy. Why do you assume that it is the fault of the poor person that they are poor? For some, this is the case. But the vast majority of poor people are born poor, and the thing about poverty is that it is like a cycle. You've obviously never been poor (don't pretend like you have, because you clearly haven't. If you think that poverty is always the fault of the person, you're full of crap.) so I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's just - with wage slavery, having to pay for ridiculous healthcare bills you can't afford, it really is impossible for people in countries like the USA to escape it. Some will manage it, yes. They're the lucky ones. I'm just thankful I live in a country with a population sensible enough to have the NHS.

 

 

 

That's ridiculous. You make it sound like no poor people have health insurance and everyone needs $300,000 heart bypasses. Pretty much if you have a full time job job you have health insurance. Only like 15% of people or something don't have some type of health insurance.

 

 

 

Your healthcare system is a pile of [cabbage]. You social conservatives.. really, callous mother****ers.

Your healthcare system is a pile of [cabbage]. You social conservatives.. really, callous mother****ers.

 

 

 

Hey, they can't be sick if they're dead.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess so ends any more response I'll ever give to you. Either shut-up or grow up, your responses are commonly inappropriate and you should probably take a step back and re-evaluate your thinking. I say this to honestly make you reflect on what you're saying because it's very immature.

 

Your healthcare system is a pile of [cabbage]. You social conservatives.. really, callous mother****ers.

 

 

 

Let's try to be big boys here and not call names.

 

 

 

I'm a callous mother****er because I don't think that 99% of America is poor and everyone who is poor not only doesn't have health insurance but has $500,000 medical bills that they have to pay?

@TheTrue

 

 

 

Do you think before you say anything? It's inherently stupid.

Fix the U.N. huh?

 

 

 

Step 1: IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM!

 

Step 2: FIX IT!

 

Step 3: IDENTIFY ANOTHER PROBLEM!

 

Step 4: FIX IT!

 

Step 5: Repeat until it's all FIXED!

 

 

 

 

 

That's how i would do it. :mrgreen:

@TheTrue

 

 

 

Do you think before you say anything? It's inherently stupid.

 

 

 

That doesn't even make sense

In the spirit of the thread I am a classical liberal.

Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

 

This is how the world works. You either work hard, or you are lazy. This is the only reason why people die because of lack of water and food. To bad they spilled their chance and chose to be born in poverty!

 

 

 

Oh look! Outside! It's a strawman!

 

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's a strawman! :lol:

 

 

 

M'kay... My view upon political stoof...

 

 

 

I would define the perfect society, a utopia this way: A society where everyone lives in the ultimate level of happiness from they are born, until they die of natural causes. (Or something as close as possible to this) To achieve this, I would go with these values:

 

 

 

Distribution of wealth - Very important. Everyone is equal, and should have the same chance of living a good life. There should be no separated class. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

 

 

 

Discrimination - Everyone is still equal, regardless of gender, religion, political view, sexual preferences or ethnicity.

 

 

 

Religion - This is personal. Religion and politics should not be mixed. Anyone can believe what they want, and others should respect that. Still, no-one should be able to be a threat to someone else's well-being and hide behind religion.

 

 

 

Freedom - Let's follow the Law of Cardemon:

 

 

 

 

You should not bother others,

 

you should be nice and kind,

 

otherwise you can do as you please.

 

 

 

Labour - People need to contribute to have the utopia running, but the conditions for the workers should not be defined by a third part, such as some kind of CEO. Workers shall control the means of productions. (Not that this quote fits in anywhere in my post :? )

 

 

 

Oh no! It seems like the bloke with hammer and sickle in his avatar and signature is a commie! :ohnoes:

See, in America, anyone can make a good living. Poor people can still go to public school for free, and if they apply themsleves, they can easily get a scholarship to a small state school or a community college if they don't. Either way they set themselves up in a position to succeed.

 

I can go to any school in the country for free if I pass the test.

 

Oh no! It seems like the bloke with hammer and sickle in his avatar and signature is a commie! :ohnoes:

 

Really? I was under the impression you were a hardcore capitalist.

Sally studies for 4 hours a day. She has a 4,0 GPA. Mary however, spends her days partying and playing WoW. She has a 2.0 GPA. Under your little tax system, it would be much fairer to all if we took 1.0 away from Sally, to give Mary a 3.0. That way everybody is equal and happy.

 

 

 

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.