Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | | Last >
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: SirTripAlot] * 2
    #25313301 -

It seems like a trade-off to me.  Under communism, you give up your chance to become a billionaire in exchange for a guaranteed home, healthcare, job, education, etc.

People in the Soviet Union were better off than many capitalist countries, except a handful of Western countries that implemented things like Social Security, Minimum Wage, Unemployment, etc.

I believe the best system is a good mix of both systems, where you still have a chance to become very wealthy, but where you're taken care of if you're not very successful.

Edit:  And that doesn't even mean "socialism" except under the conservative definition.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25316141 -

ballsalsa said:
I don't think you understand what i meant.
First off, the bill of rights are amendments to the constitution, hence, not the purpose of the document.  The constitution primarily establishes the specific powers and limitations of the federal government.
The government can enslave you, as an example, if you are convicted of a crime.  That doesn't sound inalienable to me.  That sounds like the government taking away freedom by force.  :shrug:


The Constitution was not signed until the Bill of Rights were added. They were present when the document became law. The Federal Government only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, citizens of the federal territories and D.C. If you sign up and claim citizenship with them, you voluntarily join their jurisdiction. The Constitution limits authority of the Federal Government over citizens within the States. The Constitution does not apply to citizens under Federal jurisdiction.
Taking freedom by force instead of by law is abhorrent to any sense of justice. If the fear of upholding the true law of America inspire such actions by men in government, then it proves that they are even less honorable and less desirable to affiliate with. Why socialize with such scum?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I'm sorry, but the act of getting a social security as a child does NOT enter you into a binding contract with the Government, nor is it in any way socialist.  You don't have the slightest idea what socialism is, nor do you know a thing about the law (any lawyers here should feel free to back me up or tell me I'm wrong).


You are wrong. The Social Security Number is the identifier that you use on all binding contracts with the federal government. Without one (you don't have need one to be alive) you cannot enter into contracts with them. It is the legal path that is used to ensnare you within their jurisdiction. The socialism aspect goes back to the difference between governments that I have repeated before. In the USA: Creator over Man over government, in Socialism: Government over Man. By signing up as a citizen under federal jurisdiction you are signing up for them to have authority over you. So Socialism in that respect, as well as social security benefits.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So you're telling us we should want capitalism, because capitalism gives us all the freedom to live under a bridge if we can't afford a home, to die early if we can't afford good healthcare, to be ignorant if we can't afford college, to go bankrupt if our business doesn't succeed?

You're the worst salesman for capitalism I've ever known.  The ONLY specific thing you could come up with is the freedom to gamble your life away for the small chance of becoming wealthy if your business gets lucky?

Seriously dude, I thought you'd do a lot better than that.  I've always told people I prefer capitalism to communism, as I am in the 2%, but you've just sold me on communism.


You have the freedom to think, to work, to live how and where you want to. You have the freedom to keep the money you earn. You have the freedom to pursue happiness the way you want to. In Communism, you have the right to do whatever the larger Society decides for you. Never do you have jurisdiction over your life. You are Communist property and subject to their authority.

The real difference IMO has its roots in philosophy. Communism is materialistic and atheistic. American government recognizes the Creator as the ultimate source of authority. This difference creates a different valuation of humans. America values humans as sacred, created and loved by God. Communism seems humans as resources, valued on their relative ability to contribute to society. Communism teaches that the individual has no unalienable rights because it doesn't hold man as sacred, it sees him as an animal and treats him like livestock.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: PanCog]
    #25316267 -

PanCog said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I'm sorry, but the act of getting a social security as a child does NOT enter you into a binding contract with the Government... (any lawyers here should feel free to back me up or tell me I'm wrong).


You are wrong. The Social Security Number is the identifier that you use on all binding contracts with the federal government.  It is the legal path that is used to ensnare you within their jurisdiction.

By signing up as a citizen under federal jurisdiction you are signing up for them to have authority over you.


That's the first time I've heard that.  Source?

PanCog said:
In the USA: Creator over Man over government, in Socialism: Government over Man.


So you're saying that is not true in the USA if you have a social security number, in which case you become subject to Federal Law (such as drug laws)?  But without a social security number, you are exempt from Federal Law?

PanCog said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So you're telling us we should want capitalism, because capitalism gives us all the freedom to live under a bridge if we can't afford a home, to die early if we can't afford good healthcare, to be ignorant if we can't afford college, to go bankrupt if our business doesn't succeed?

You're the worst salesman for capitalism I've ever known.  The ONLY specific thing you could come up with is the freedom to gamble your life away for the small chance of becoming wealthy if your business gets lucky?

Seriously dude, I thought you'd do a lot better than that.  I've always told people I prefer capitalism to communism, as I am in the 2%, but you've just sold me on communism.


You have the freedom to think, to work, to live how and where you want to. You have the freedom to pursue happiness the way you want to.


You could have those freedoms under communism.

PanCog said:
In Communism, you have the right to do whatever the larger Society decides for you. Never do you have jurisdiction over your life. You are Communist property and subject to their authority.

American government recognizes the Creator as the ultimate source of authority. This difference creates a different valuation of humans. America values humans as sacred, created and loved by God. Communism seems humans as resources, valued on their relative ability to contribute to society. Communism teaches that the individual has no unalienable rights because it doesn't hold man as sacred, it sees him as an animal and treats him like livestock.


This shows you don't understand communism.  Or capitalism for that matter.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25316434 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It seems like a trade-off to me.  Under communism, you give up your chance to become a billionaire in exchange for a guaranteed home, healthcare, job, education, etc.

People in the Soviet Union were better off than many capitalist countries, except a handful of Western countries that implemented things like Social Security, Minimum Wage, Unemployment, etc.

I believe the best system is a good mix of both systems, where you still have a chance to become very wealthy, but where you're taken care of if you're not very successful.

Edit:  And that doesn't even mean "socialism" except under the conservative definition.


And Chomsky would argue the USSR wasnt even socialist.

Which is true, the workers absolutely did not have control over the means of production, the massive bureaucracy did.

As progressive as the USSR was at the time, its no more a testament to the feasibility of socialism as Africa is to the feasibility of capitalism.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #25316618 -

I don't know why, it might be the mix of logic and Sovereign Citizen bullshit, but I've got a conspiratorial mindset now.

What if the US values the lucky few at the expense of the many, because in geopolitical terms, the US is one of the lucky few themselves? Capable of borrowing heavily from prior lessons learned in Europe, who were the upper middle class upbringing, we were able to avoid most of the destruction of the last 200-300 years to become the biggest economy. We're the 1%. So that's why our national ethos is shifting more towards "help the 1%".

Explains all the protectionism, too. It's like private education and gated neighborhoods-you gotta protect your wealth. Get rich, and then freeze economic time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Kryptos]
    #25316621 -

Definitely. The US enjoys all the benefits of a Western European nation without any of the looming geopolitical threats.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #25316629 -

So, having none of the threats, we end up with none of the respect for those threats.

Bit like telling a bum to "just get a job", eh?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Kryptos]
    #25316685 -

Kryptos said:
I don't know why, it might be the mix of logic and Sovereign Citizen bullshit, but I've got a conspiratorial mindset now.

What if the US values the lucky few at the expense of the many, because in geopolitical terms, the US is one of the lucky few themselves? Capable of borrowing heavily from prior lessons learned in Europe, who were the upper middle class upbringing, we were able to avoid most of the destruction of the last 200-300 years to become the biggest economy. We're the 1%. So that's why our national ethos is shifting more towards "help the 1%".

Explains all the protectionism, too. It's like private education and gated neighborhoods-you gotta protect your wealth. Get rich, and then freeze economic time.



"why our national ethos is shifting more towards 'help the 1%'"

Like economically impoverished liberals supporting globalization and unlimited immigration?

"Explains all the protectionism"

What "protectionism"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Kryptos] * 2
    #25316690 -

Kryptos said:
So, having none of the threats, we end up with none of the respect for those threats.

Bit like telling a bum to "just get a job", eh?


American exceptionalism is laughable.


It exists because we entered two world wars in their waning moments, and strung together a couple decades of economic expansion because of the aftermath of the second world war.

What else is exceptional about America? Our military spending? Percentage of adults who dont believe in evolution? Laughable.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: qman] * 1
    #25316766 -

qman said:
Kryptos said:
We're the 1%. So that's why our national ethos is shifting more towards "help the 1%".


Like economically impoverished liberals supporting globalization and unlimited immigration?


No, that's a very insignificant part of the problem (you yourself have been unable to demonstrate otherwise).

More like allowing tax cuts for the super rich, real minimum wages to slide, elimination of Wall Street regulations, removal of union protections, unaffordable healthcare, lowering of estate taxes, social security cuts, etc...

You know, thing that ACTUALLY matter for the average American.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: PanCog] * 2
    #25316774 -

PanCog said:
The real difference IMO has its roots in philosophy. Communism is materialistic and atheistic. American government recognizes the Creator as the ultimate source of authority. This difference creates a different valuation of humans. America values humans as sacred, created and loved by God. Communism seems humans as resources, valued on their relative ability to contribute to society. Communism teaches that the individual has no unalienable rights because it doesn't hold man as sacred, it sees him as an animal and treats him like livestock.


Are you somehow unaware that at the time of this countries founding blacks we're literally livestock, bought and sold at auction, at the mercy of masters who could use them as they pleased? Or that the early republic enforced displacement and genocide of native peoples?

Many of the founding documents had great language and ideas, "all men are created equal with certain God given and unalienable rights...". Great stuff.

But the dichotomy of those words and reality in the United States has historically been as great as the dichotomy between the vision of socialist utopians and the reality of life under leftist dictators.


--------------------


"Rape ... Is a... can of apples" -Fiery

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25316797 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
Kryptos said:
We're the 1%. So that's why our national ethos is shifting more towards "help the 1%".


Like economically impoverished liberals supporting globalization and unlimited immigration?


No, that's a very insignificant part of the problem (you yourself have been unable to demonstrate otherwise).

More like allowing tax cuts for the super rich, real minimum wages to slide, elimination of Wall Street regulations, removal of union protections, unaffordable healthcare, lowering of estate taxes, social security cuts, etc...

You know, thing that ACTUALLY matter for the average American.


But both of our reasons can't be correct if it doesn't fit neatly into your political ideology?  I'm not dismissing your points, yet the points that don't mix with the left are "very insignificant". :facepalm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: qman]
    #25316842 -

If you can finally show immigration has a significant effect on my well being, I'll take your complaint more seriously.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25316880 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
If you can finally show immigration has a significant effect on my well being, I'll take your complaint more seriously.


Number one, you forgot the first part of my issue (globalization/US trade agreements).

Number two, how immigration personally affects you is the least of my concerns. My main concern is the US working class, but thanks for showing us where your concerns lie.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: qman] * 1
    #25316923 -

qman said:
Number one, you forgot the first part of my issue (globalization/US trade agreements).

Number two, how immigration personally affects you is the least of my concerns. My main concern is the US working class, but thanks for showing us where your concerns lie.


Number one, I didn't forget globalization; I focused on the area I disagree most with you (immigration)

Number two, I am part of the US working class - so that's absolutely where my concern lies.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25316989 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
Number one, you forgot the first part of my issue (globalization/US trade agreements).

Number two, how immigration personally affects you is the least of my concerns. My main concern is the US working class, but thanks for showing us where your concerns lie.


Number one, I didn't forget globalization; I focused on the area I disagree most with you (immigration)

Number two, I am part of the US working class - so that's absolutely where my concern lies.


Great, then let's stop making you the focus of the "US working class". :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: qman]
    #25317119 -

The protectionism bit should be fairly obvious, re: trade war, excessive military spending.

I fail to see why globalization is a problem, myself. I'm personally of the opinion that globalization should allow the US to exist without a working class. We could literally import the labor. However, this would require expensive education programs, significant focus on education in general, and the results would not be seen for a very long time. Probably at least two generations. So there's no way that anybody would go for it. Plus, it would likely require some global coordination. Since people seem overly fixed on borders, it seems this will eventually come from the corporate world. It is, after all, more efficient to build a big factory instead of a dozen small factories, and people will move to where the work is. Then, if corporations expanded their employment visa sponsorship, they could literally move their workers around as needed. Low skilled workers all go to the factory in China, medium skilled workers go to the sales floors, high skilled workers go to the Exec penthouse in Hong Kong, that kind of thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: Kryptos]
    #25317352 -

Kryptos said:
The protectionism bit should be fairly obvious, re: trade war, excessive military spending.

I fail to see why globalization is a problem, myself. I'm personally of the opinion that globalization should allow the US to exist without a working class. We could literally import the labor. However, this would require expensive education programs, significant focus on education in general, and the results would not be seen for a very long time. Probably at least two generations. So there's no way that anybody would go for it. Plus, it would likely require some global coordination. Since people seem overly fixed on borders, it seems this will eventually come from the corporate world. It is, after all, more efficient to build a big factory instead of a dozen small factories, and people will move to where the work is. Then, if corporations expanded their employment visa sponsorship, they could literally move their workers around as needed. Low skilled workers all go to the factory in China, medium skilled workers go to the sales floors, high skilled workers go to the Exec penthouse in Hong Kong, that kind of thing.


"trade war"

Oh, you mean the "trade war" the US has been losing every year? 

That's a version of "protectionism" for who exactly?

"I fail to see why globalization is a problem"

If you're a very wealthy person, it's not a problem. If you're not in the top .01 of 1%, it's most likely a problem. 

Globalization has created the massive wealth inequality we see today in developed nations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: qman]
    #25317359 -

Globalization only creates inequality because of borders. If the ruling class werent able to divide us, globalization would be a good thing.


But ewwww people born in other countries are icky. Probably easier to do away with global trade.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Democratic Socialists of America [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #25317381 -

The Ecstatic said:
Globalization only creates inequality because of borders. If the ruling class werent able to divide us, globalization would be a good thing.


But ewwww people born in other countries are icky. Probably easier to do away with global trade.


If you're suggesting that diluting the US and mixing equally with the other 8 billion people on the planet "would be a good thing", you're wrong.

That's pie in the sky economic theory. Mixing third world economies with developed economies creates many dislocations and extreme margins that are irresistible for shareholders.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | | Last >

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 59 Socialists in Congress - 2002
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,311 22 09/20/02 09:11 PM
by Albino_Jesus
* hey socialists...
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,019 32 09/17/03 09:46 PM
by Phred
* America's role in the Chilean coup Edame 910 16 09/11/03 01:00 PM
by Xlea321
* HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
( 1 2 3 all )		 lonestar2004 5,275 40 02/25/07 12:16 PM
by gluke bastid
* The betrayal of America
( 1 2 all )		 lonestar2004 3,282 33 03/07/06 05:30 AM
by Phred
* Socialist Leads U.S. Senate Race in Vt. RandalFlagg 809 2 05/29/05 09:25 PM
by Annapurna1
* Latin America faces down "free trade" Alex213 369 0 11/16/05 10:52 AM
by Alex213
* America staggers under the leadership of liars carbonhoots 355 0 11/06/03 12:00 AM
by carbonhoots

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,872 topic views. 4 members, 31 guests and 31 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.