I don't have a dog in this fight, the way I see it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheltire
Printable View
I don't have a dog in this fight, the way I see it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheltire
Ensuring there is money to be spent from all sides is also the basis of Capitalism, otherwise the whole system fails.
I've said this in a previous post but could not find the post to quote it. Basically we have two sides doing a dance to attract the most votes. During this dance it is imperative to be extremely vague in order to not piss off too many people. What does this mean for the voters trying to figure out which puppet to vote for? Well since there is very little substance to go on we are left with the appearance and presentability of the candidate. Does he/she speak well and intelligently? Would you want this person representing your country? Do you believe any of the horse shit that spews forth from their mouth? Do they share similar beliefs, whatever they may be? It's sad I know, but it seems the reality of the situation. I've heard the lesser of two evils (weevils) thrown around, perhaps its true.
I apologize for using explicit verancular in my last post, but it was reiterating the fact that such language is unacceptable for a president. Just my opinion. We all have our opinions. Hopefully the populace makes the right decision, because the country and the world could really use a strong/intelligent leader atm. Docta out.
Doma could you clarify your post? There is no subject in your sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Domathoine
Also Oct, I understand your opinion but as I used to be a History major I have seen and heard so many goofy stories about presidents that it takes more then vulgar language on a national/global scale to make me blink now a days. But you are absolutely right about it all being a dance to offend less people.
Taken from Wikipedia, which admittedly isn't the greatest source of information, we have this definition.
Quote:
Capitalism
For one to be able to seek a profit, a profit must be able to be made in the first place. If the free market has no means to pay for the goods or services provided, then you get into a situation of high demand and supply, but little exchange of these same goods//services.Quote:
is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> private persons and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market<sup id="cite_ref-Bacher_1-0" class="reference">[2]</sup> in which anyone can participate in supply and demand and form contracts with each other, rather than by central economic planning.
Now lets take a look at Socialism and then communism, with the definitions taken from the same admittedly questionable source.
While this hits closer to home than communism, it is *NOT* what Obama is proposing. Obama is *NOT* advocating collective ownership but rather a slightly weighted balance of wealth through the society.Quote:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Again, we see no *common* ownership based on the means of production to the general public, only the ability for any individual, or set of individuals, to take part in the free-market economy.Quote:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.
So lets take a look at America *on paper*. *On paper*, we are a classless, egalitarian society, which puts us closer on paper to Communism than Obama's idea of a change in the way wealth is distributed in our society.
*Footnote*
Egalitarianism defined, for those unclear.
Doma you did little to clarify the post I quoted. What is the purpose of your sentence.
Also communism in practice has never been done per the dictionary definition, except in rare instances such as the kalbuks(sp?) (Jewish communal farm, and even these aren't true communisms.)
What Obama is saying is that a rich person whether inherited or earned deservces to lose more money so that people who don't feel like working (granted this doesn't take into account people just down on their luck who are trying) get govt money to spend. I will grant that this is in fact a poor comparison and it was made overly simplistic by design.
Raising income taxes on high-income individuals and lowering income taxes on others is not actually giving government money away to anyone. It is redistributing the tax burden. I believe that Obama's argument is that it shifts the burden off of those less able to bear it and on to those more able to bear it.Quote:
What Obama is saying is that a rich person whether inherited or earned deservces to lose more money so that people who don't feel like working (granted this doesn't take into account people just down on their luck who are trying) get govt money to spend.
Who says I was only talking about the income tax changes?
I'd just like to say that this is the most brilliant PL post topic ever.
Palin scares me, but then again anyone who takes the bible literally does.
One more thing:
Has anyone here ever read "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut? OR seen the TV short with Sean Astin made from the short story?
I feel like actually live in that distopian society only the elites are not there to "make things run" they are simply taking as much money as they can and saying "FU!" to the rest of the U.S.
For those that DARE to read and think for themselves: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
I know why!Quote:
Originally Posted by renshin
Renshin is a David Letterman fan and loves all the material Sarah Palin is creating for him.
I honestly didn't think the Republican Party could find someone that came across as dumb as Bush does in front of a camera. But they did. Palin is the improved Bush 2.0 when it comes to stupid comments.
Yes, but we all smile and fawn over the Pretty Women; no matter what they say (or for that matter whether they make sense at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty
We just want our pretty people to look at!
The day science can create a tree from various molecules is the day I'll say maybe your correct. Until that day something had to create it! I call that something God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aundine
Ain
Trees are too easy. Let's try something more challenging: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4871540.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by Aindayen
Can't they cross splice/Genetically modify trees like they do plants, creating trees that don't occur in nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aindayen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parak
Also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7694663.stm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aindayen
Who created God then? That's the one I'm worried about.
mmm religious discussion, that is the obvious next step in this thread.
my god owns your god!
discuss.
I don't have a god, so how can it be owned?
Thread fails.
If you dont have a god you cant play obviously!Quote:
Originally Posted by Domathoine