|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 17, 2004 7:04:49 GMT -5
"Every GOP administration since 1952 has let the Military-Industrial Complex loot the Treasury and plunge the nation into debt on the excuse of a wartime economic emergency. Richard Nixon comes quickly to mind, along with Ronald Reagan and his ridiculous "trickle-down" theory of U.S. economic policy. If the rich get richer, the theory goes, before long their pots will overflow and somehow 'trickle down' to the poor, who would rather eat scraps off the Bush family plates than eat nothing at all. Republicans have never approved of democracy, and they never will. It goes back to pre-industrial America, when only white male property owners could vote." – Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Pink on Nov 17, 2004 10:46:43 GMT -5
First, that's why its called a theory...it has not been proven. Second, not that limiting voting to white males only is the right thing to do, but the founding fathers did that because typically these were the men that understood what was going on and "typically" had the most schooling. Again, discrimination, and I certainly don't approve.
Tell me this one though, why do dems, especially the liberal side, continue to whine about the poor getting poorer. What theory has been proven (don't recall by whom) is that when you give people too many things for free they become lazy and accept the free bee's. Example: San Francisco decided a few years ago to start paying the homeless $400 a month. Not against it if it is done the right way to help people get going again. But what has happened is that now the city has a huge homeless population that it now supports. You talk about wasting tax money on the military, how about people that sponge off the system. I believe in helping the poor and destitute, but sometimes helping them means forcing them to get a job. It's just like with teenagers. If you continue to spoil them, they never learn how to work for what they want. But spoiling is okay every once in a while.
One fact though is that we will always have some poor, not necessarily because they are forced to, but because they choose to.
And if you like socialism, go live in Cuba.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 17, 2004 11:51:17 GMT -5
...Second, not that limiting voting to white males only is the right thing to do, but the founding fathers did that because typically these were the men that understood what was going on and "typically" had the most schooling... Bzzzz, wrong. If they wanted "educated" voters, they could've easily required just that. They wanted "white male" voters because people back then were sexist and racist. Some people still are. Bzzz, wrong again. Thanks for playing though.  Cuba is a communist dictatorship. There are no truly socialist countries in the world; but there are countries that practice some form of socialism, e.g. Canada, Britain, Spain, France, Germany, etc. -- and even the United States -- or have you never heard of Social Security, Medicare, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Pink on Nov 17, 2004 12:55:20 GMT -5
You really think that there were educated white males that did not own land. Can you think in more than one dimension. Remember, women were not allowed to be educated; blacks definitely were not allowed to be educated (funny, that still happens), and whites that did not own land were usually poor farmers or tradesmen. NOT stupid people, formally uneducated.
I know what a Socialist society is, I have read Marx and Thomas More. I also know that it is unrealistic to achieve. There are good aspects to socialism, just like capitalism, but we are not a true capitalist society either. But what is used in Cuba is far more socialist (and yes dictatorship) than any where else in the world.
Funny also how certain socialist programs here in the country are far more racist than many people are. How do you justify telling minorities to vote for you, promising to keep them dependant on the government to survive? I would rather see people giving them the tools to rise out of poverty and achieve becuase they did it. Not because the govt gave them free health care. Are you aware how intelligent minorities are? They figured out rather quickly that the more babies the women had, the more money the state and govt would give them. This is one reason why there are so many young women in poverty having children.
"Instead of finding a cure, treat the symptom"
|
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 17, 2004 13:44:04 GMT -5
You really think that there were educated white males that did not own land. Yes, there were many. There were even many women and non-white males who were highly educated. Ever hear of Frederick Douglass? Yes, quite easily. I've often dabbled in Kaluza-Klein type theories and other GUT theories (such as Supersymmety, Supergravity, and Superstring theories) that often depend upon 10 or more dimensions. Have you ever thought beyond the 2-dimensional flat-earth model? I should think so, I happen to be one. Are you saying you advocate allowing women in poverty to have abortions instead? By the way, the main reason humans (or any living organisms) tend to have more offspring under extreme or harsh conditions is statistical. The lower the chances for survivability, the more offspring are produced; it's just natural instinct. From what you've been preaching, it seems that you think the "treatments" are the "cause" of the problem. Pray tell, BEFORE such "social treatments" were designed, what were the "causes" in the past? Or do you think there was NO poverty before the invention of "social programs"? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Pink on Nov 17, 2004 14:27:44 GMT -5
Are you sure on your history...I guess maybe we are miscommunicating. Your talking an entirely different era than I am. You speak in recent history (ie 1900's on). I will have to check when the last time the US used land ownership as a measure for votership. I am speaking from the late 1700's til the Civil War.
As for multi-dimensional, I do think in several dimensions. I, like fish, have feelings. That makes me multi-dimensional. I am not going to pretend that I know all the theory stuff. It doesn't interest me, it does you that's fine. Good luck convincing the religious fanatics.
yes it is an instinct to have more children under harsh conditions, but that is either 100 years ago or in current third world countries. I am talking 2004 in the USA. And no I do not advocate abortion (well, only if it the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother's health). You are taking things a little personal here.
Finally, since you are multi-dimensional you knew that when I said "treat the symptom" I meant not looking for solutions...right? A quick example, while FDR did a good job moving America out of depression, he implemented the Ag Adjustment Admin. They would destroy crops and animals to raise the prices for farm goods. Here they could have used the goods for the country and found a solution instead of a treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 17, 2004 15:02:15 GMT -5
Are you sure on your history...I guess maybe we are miscommunicating. Your talking an entirely different era than I am. You speak in recent history (ie 1900's on). I will have to check when the last time the US used land ownership as a measure for votership. I am speaking from the late 1700's til the Civil War... Do a search on Phyllis Wheatley, who was not only a woman, but also a slave. By the way, just who do you think "taught" all those white young males whom you believe were the only "educated" members of society? Many of the teachers in colonial America were women. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 17, 2004 15:32:41 GMT -5
Tell me this one though, why do dems, especially the liberal side, continue to whine about the poor getting poorer. Did you see a single reference in the quotation form HST that mentioned the poor? His comment was regarding the rich. The "conservatives" have repeatedly claimed that lowering the taxes on the poor would allow them to put more into the economy. The tendency has been shown that the rich as often as not simply hold onto the additional wealth rather than reinvesting it. Those that are not rich (including the poor) have a tendency to live beyond their means, meaning that if their tax burden was lowered as much as that of the rich they would out of necessity put the money back into society. I find it interesting that the "conservatives" also love to claim that the "liberals" in politics are the ones that increase spending. If you actually take the time to look at the CBO (congressional budget office) site for historical information you will see that the "conservatives" (at least as far back as Carters term in office) has increased federal budgets (and deficits) more than the "liberals". For GWB's 3 full fiscal years in office his administration has had a total increase in the federal budget that is larger than Clinton's total budget increase for his entire 8 year tenure in office. That doesn't include the (at least) $120 billion spent on the Iraq war efforts which were conveniently left out of the FY 2004 budget. Have you actually done any research to show how much is actually spent on the "social programs" you keep complaining about? Or compared those expenditures to other budgetary items for the government? |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 17, 2004 22:48:27 GMT -5
Are you aware how intelligent minorities are? They figured out rather quickly that the more babies the women had, the more money the state and govt would give them. This is one reason why there are so many young women in poverty having children. "Instead of finding a cure, treat the symptom" The reason Mormons' have so many children is because the more they have, the Holier they are in the eyes of their religion. I think another reason young women have children is because they are horny. |
|
|
|
Post by donkeykong on Nov 20, 2004 12:07:53 GMT -5
The reason Mormons' have so many children is because the more they have, the Holier they are in the eyes of their religion. I think another reason young women have children is because they are horny. Bigfan, sorry to tell you but that anti-mormon book you read was completely wrong. That is about as funny as the myth of mormons with horns on their head. You can rub my head to check if you want? |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 20, 2004 12:22:05 GMT -5
I think another reason young women have children is because they are horny. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 20, 2004 12:57:27 GMT -5
BiK, you're being a bad influence on the youth of our nation again!  |
|
Cuba is a communist dictatorship. There are no truly socialist countries in the world; but there are countries that practice some form of socialism, e.g. Canada, Britain, Spain, France, Germany, etc. -- and even the United States -- or have you never heard of Social Security, Medicare, etc.?
