Why Democrats (Liberals) Piss Me Off

damn those no good liberals with their civil rights, and anti-poverty campaigns...

 

By the way, the unlearned "super moderator" has stated that I posted a link to "racist gibberish" (I believe he wrote something like that; it's not like it's bearable reading his posts), when the article I linked to was written by a political commentator and writer with a PhD, who is recognized among Old Right intellectuals. I disagree with a lot of what he has written about race, but the article I linked to was for the most part sensible. Those who feel differently can read that article by Mr. Francis and explain why they differ in opinion.

You see, claiming that a viewpoint is "racist" or "sexist" or "fascistic" is just not sufficient. This is something the "super moderator" needs to learn.

The funny thing is, the "super moderator" can rant all he wants against people like Mr. Francis (whose ideas I do not fully endorse), but it's unlikely he will ever have so much as a fraction of the education that the now deceased Mr. Francis had.

I have a theory that just as in elections in certain political forums there are trolls that slip through the cracks and reach positions they were not meant to have. How else could Balbus have ever gotten to be a moderator? It's baffling, really.

 

Well here are some thoughts from yesterday I didn’t have time to post then -

I had thought many people had stopped using the political correctness slur for the very reason that it was being used so often by people with extreme views on such things as race.

Although people might disagreeing with the methods of some of those trying to tackle intolerance and discrimination few however agree with the spirit of that movement.

I mean who but a fool or a racist would revel in promoting intolerance and discrimination?

Well as I said earlier there are those that would, to gain power, those that make a big deal of peoples differences so that they can use that to scapegoat those say of a different race or different beliefs.

Sometimes it can work for short times and causes little pain but at other times like as with the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazis it can be devastating to a lot of peoples lives. What is always true is that discrimination and intolerance are seen as stupid in the end.

 

I agree that intolerance and bigotry are stupid. While I may not agree with many leftists regarding their extreme environmentalist views in the nature/nurture debate, I see how views on hereditarianism could be misused against groups to promote crimes against humanity.

I am not interested in defending groups that would use scientific data to promote hatred of others. In fact, those who feel hatred toward other groups tend to be among the least genetically fit within their group (the irony!).

It is true that there are hidden motives by those who peddle "racial science" from both the right and the left which claims to be opposed to it. Still, some reputable scientists in the past such as Hans Eysenck have studied the issue of race and as I recall were met with great hostility. It's a delicate issue but I feel that there should be some room for scientists to draw politically incorrect conclusions (I understand you define PC differently). Not every conclusion is going to come out as we would like.

To me, the subject of race is emotionally charged, like the subject of religion. Egalitarianism is somewhat similar to Creationism.

 

**

Back to today
Well for whatever reason LSD seems to have at last given his own views of on ‘racial differences’.

Now to place these in context, he claimed that he was reluctant to give us his views "so as to not provoke unnecessary antagonisms" because discussions of race are "fraught with emotions which can very easily create nasty arguments and bitter feelings".

So LSD’s views on racial difference that he thought could cause so much nastiness and bitter feeling are –

Racial differences are shown in many ways: body dimensions, susceptibility to diseases, to some degree in different talents (for example, most top sprinters are of West African descent). Those who argue that race does not exist point out that there is overlap, largely due to racial admixture over the course of history. There is controversy over whether the races differ psychologically, which is not something I am particularly concerned with, since there is plenty of overlap anyway among the races and since environment is a strong shaper of psychology.

**

So LSD’s racial differences can be set out as –

Body dimensions

Susceptibility to diseases

‘Different talents’

**

A lot of bodily dimensions are dictated by environment and diet as well as genetic factors but even then these can be mixed within ‘racial’ groups. For example two of us in the office are of Scottish descent one is short the other tall the same with two people of Indian ancestry. Now while some racial groups are in general tall or short it isn’t really a fixed rule and I’m not sure that there are that many left wingers that would disagree or deny this. What I would ask is what relevance it has?

**

Yes some racial groups are more susceptible to some illness than others I don’t think there are that many people who deny this. Again I would ask what relevance this has, I mean are people that love each other to not have a relationship because one of them might carry some genetic risk?

**

The difficult one here is ‘different talents’ I mean can certain traits be attached to certain racial groups? LSD gives an example to back his claim that "most top sprinters are of West African descent" well another way is to see it was genetic-

They say top class sprinters are more likely to have a copy of a particular version of a gene called ACTN3.

They believe this version, the R allele, enables them to produce the explosive bursts of speed they need.

R allele produces a protein called actinin, which is found in muscle fibres. Scientists believe it enables muscles to contract more quickly and more powerfully.

The gene also comes in another form, the X allele. However, this version does not produce this protein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3183119.stm

The thing is that just because you have the gene doesn’t mean you will be one of the worlds top sprinters and even with effort this genetic ‘talent’ only gives the very smallest of advantages. Also that gene can be passed on in the same way that having blue or green eyes can, so the question really is what relevance is LSD putting on the ‘talent’.

I mean we all have things in our genetic makeup that go toward how we look or what abilities we may have. I am blue eyed with fair hair but am also tall and long legged the latter helped me to ran for my school and county in long distance cross-country events. I probably have to thank my ancestry for some of this along with my upbringing but also the work I put into it. By the same token I also have to thank my ancestors for my dyslexia.

**

Dear LSD

I would say that your views on race, as so far expressed, do not seem to be very different from those of many on the left, so maybe you should revise you opinion?

**

The article by Mr. Francis was based on another article by a Dr. Rienzi (not his real name) which I think I have already show to be racist gibberish.

If you wish to refute my claims against it please feel free.




**

 

I must thank LSD for highlighting a common problem, accepting propaganda and not looking closely at the source of this propaganda.

If LSD had not just accepted the view that the ‘left’ deny racial difference and had done a bit of work he would have realised that most lefties do not deny there are no differences only that those differences are not that relevant. The other thing that he might have realised was that some of the people pushing this myth were racists.

So first don’t just accept something research it and discuss it with other people (and not just those that agree with it) and two, be careful people such as racists don’t always tell you that they are racists before trying to tell you lies.

 

liberals never had control of this country.

 

**

Ok on to the next thing on LSD’s list

I despise the idea that the government should take care of people.

You might despise it but why, what are your reasons for this dislike?

I mean what in your opinion is government for?

And in the statement what is meant by ‘people’?

**

To me the most important duty of any government is the care of the people it governs.

It should care for its defence, it should care for its rights, it should care for its quality of life.

I would ask if it was not caring about these things what use is it to the people?

**

 

Find which item does not fit among the list:

*Hippies* *Counterculture* *Communes* *Youth Movement* *Balbus*

It should be obvious which item does not belong, judging by what has been written on this thread (it is in bold, by the way).

So, what do we know about Balbus? He promotes big government socialism, implied in his belief that government should take care of innumerable (and seemingly limitless) social problems. As far as I know, this is incompatible with the ideals of the hippies.

The hippies believed in social equality, and they may have allied themselves with leftists of various parties, but a centralized government tends to take away freedoms by making "one-size-fits-all" legislation, which takes away local autonomy. The communes established by the hippies were presumably decentralized.

I understand that we all age, including the hippies who participated in the Summer of Love, and that it's the spirit and not the flesh that really matters. But Balbus is not only old in the flesh, he's old in the spirit. He seems cranky and authoritarian, which is what you would expect from an anti-hippie socialist who supports big government.

When you think about it, many of the communists of the Eastern bloc were really conservatives (authoritarian traditionalists) who thought, like Balbus, that government knows better.

To show just how conservative Balbus really is, there has been a trend in recent decades for businesses to deregulate and detach themselves from government control and ownership. Countries that have made such market reforms have tended to experience faster GDP growth and increases in standard of living. Balbus, on the other hand, wants to return to the days of sluggish growth, inefficiency and bureaucracy. He seems to hate hippies.

 

Dear LSD

I can understand why you seem so upset and are lashing out blindly.

It can be difficult and confusing to find that long held assertions don’t stand up and are nothing more than myths.

But rather than have a hissy fit, why not try and learn from the experience and begin to question more of your views?

For example why not look at my last post, here it is again –

I despise the idea that the government should take care of people.

You might despise it but why, what are your reasons for this dislike?

I mean what in your opinion is government for?

And in the statement what is meant by ‘people’?

**

To me the most important duty of any government is the care of the people it governs.

It should care for its defence, it should care for its rights, it should care for its quality of life.

I would ask if it was not caring about these things what use is it to the people?


**

 

As Ilana Mercer put it:

"...the only real duty of a government is to uphold the rights of people to be free of unprovoked violence."

She is basically right. The duty of a government, in my view, is to protect the rights (as the American founders saw them) of the citizenry, and this means, among other things, that people have a right to be free of unprovoked violence.

Your view that the government should take care of people is getting a bit outdated, which makes you, in this context, a conservative. To top it off, you didn't even offer any qualifications to your assertion.

 

The context of the Ilana Mercer quote is in support of the UN in trying block the US attacks on Iraq. Here is the whole paragraph -

"Right now, the U.N. is merely performing a negative function. It is preventing the violation of rights; in this case the rights of Iraqis to be free of unprovoked aggression. Oddly enough, the only real duty of a government is to uphold the rights of people to be free of unprovoked violence. There are endless reasons to dismantle the U.N., but stalling the war on Iraq is not one of them."

So in a way she seems to be making a compliment to the UN in it’s efforts to stall the US by saying that it in her opinion performing not just the most important but the only real duty of a government.

Well my personnel view is that the UN should be reformed and democratised along with other global institutions -

Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75062

She is a libertarian are you?

**

"The duty of a government, in my view, is to protect the rights (as the American founders saw them) of the citizenry, and this means, among other things, that people have a right to be free of unprovoked violence."

Well duh…I mean think what the alternative is that a government supports unprovoked attacks on its citizens? Do you think in a democratic system that a political group would get elected openly saying that they don’t care if the electorate is subject to unprovoked violence.

You then have to ask (as Mercer has) if your government’s attacks on others is ok? What kind of checks should be in place?

Then there is the matter of just what are your definitions of the terms unprovoked and violence. (just see the way ‘torture’ can be interpreted)

The there is the matter of external and domestic attacks, so that brings in defence, that has to be organised and what kind of army are you going to have? Also if you are worried by external threats it might be an idea to have some kind of intelligence gathering units (both for at home and abroad) what will they be how will they be organised and who are they accountable to? Then there is the police, how are they organised and who controls them?

You then have to ask if a solider, policeman or spy dies from violence that has nothing to do with them provoking the action but due to the government they work for doing something, is that them doing their duty or not getting due protection?

The laws that are set in place to protect the citizens, how are they set up by whom and how are they regulated and enforced?

**


Your view that the government should take care of people is getting a bit outdated, which makes you, in this context, a conservative. To top it off, you didn't even offer any qualifications to your assertion.

Which assertion?

I said that

To me the most important duty of any government is the care of the people it governs.

It should care for its defence, it should care for its rights, it should care for its quality of life.

I would ask if it was not caring about these things what use is it to the people?

Are you saying that these views are outdated and that in some way you disagree with them? If so why?

 

Ilana Mercer is the best damn essayist I have encountered, right up there with Justin Raimondo (another libertarian), although she arguably surpasses him. Her analytical rigor and verbal fluency astound me (it's not uncommon for me to have to check the dictionary one or two times when reading her essays), and she is just so reasonable and yet iconoclastic. She also has an amazing store of general knowledge.

I cannot say I am a libertarian, because only recently have I started reading her essays, but I plan on learning more about the ideology once I am done with school and have more free time.

You strike me as holding increasingly outmoded ideas on the extent to which the government should be involved in the daily affairs of the people. I may have gotten this impression from other threads; what you write on this thread also gives me that impression, but it seems to me that the debate is turning into quibbles over the meanings of words.

Like I wrote, countries that have made free market reforms have experienced faster GDP growth and increases in standard of living. I suppose my skepticism over privatized health care would disqualify me from the libertarian tag, but I tend to see government-run entities as inefficient, based on personal experience.

 

Yes, liberals are dirty buffoons. So is the large majority of conservatives. The fact of the matter is that both of the major political parties are leading this country down the shitter. I say fuck the liberals and fuck the conservatives -- or, rather the so-called "conservatives". Fuck their partisan rhetoric that is destroying this country. It's all there to control you and divide the masses.

 

lsd i think the question was do you believe the government should care for its citezens? who should see that our elderly are cared for? how about the disabled? are we as a country to toss them aside? what are your veiws? im not particurly a balbus fan but he has asked pertinent qustions about your opinion of witch you have avoided! im not trying to be mean but i am curius as to why you are so interested in the whole race thing and feel the need to use it in putting down librals ?

 

I think the liberal bashing comes from the actions of the democrat party... but people dont understand that the democrat party has never been a liberal party... t he people who run for office as democrats are actually more moderate to conservative then liberal... In america, there will never be a true liberal government or a true conservative government... jus partisan bullshit.

 

Thats not exactly true... in countries with more socialistic programs we see a higher standard of living... lower crime rates... these countries are actually doing better off with them... better so than countries without them (america)

Giving money to the poor encourages more small businesses to be begun, but of course when huge corporations hold absolute power those small businesses are destined to fail anyway, most of them..

You are so concerned about the government stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but when it comes down to the rich stealing from the poor I dont hear much against that... and its happening every day... but I guess we can just continue spouting our rhetoric and ignore that... Fuck, lets use the cliche, "give a man a fish" quote, that always makes me seem intelligent.

Throwing money at the poor does a lot of things... a few of the good things that happens: 1. Crime rates go down drastically 2. Literacy rates improve 3. More small businesses emerge, creating a more healthy economy.

instead of giving those who need money money conservatives like to give those who dont need money more money... its called trickle down economics and it hasnt worked sense reagan and it has been a humongous failure for bush.... whine bitch and complain about governments "stealing" from the rich and giving to the needy, but when it comes down to Tax Cuts for the rich and tax breaks for wealthy corporations, and a number of other things related to corporate welfare, most of you dont have anything to say.

That is a hilarious quote. How would giving the poor more money result in MORE poor people? It doesnt, you are just pulling shit out of your ass. You give the poor more money and they will spend it on rent, or if they have enough invest, or start a business, or go to college... all these things are beneficial for society and all these things are beneficial for the economy...
Giving the RICH more money, on the other hand, DOES result in more poverty... DOES result in more crime... and not to mention it leads to businessmen plotting to control the government offices and thereby control the country..
till they can get rid of our labour laws...

If you widen the gap between rich and poor by making the rich more wealthy and having NOTHING for the poor, it is extremely bad for the economy, and results in more poverty... this is common knowledge.

When jack sits on his ass and jill works 60 hrs a week under Jack, and gets paid less than a living wage, n in the mean time jill produces enough product to make 10,000 $ for jack, jack is essentially stealing from what Jill created.
And thats only one example of how the rich steal from the poor every day... i didnt even get started on the amount of corporate welfare that is essentially stealing from the poor..
The actual amount of money we spend on "throwing at the poor" in this country is next to nothing... considering we spend next to 50% of our budget on "Defense", there are many more bigger issues out there than complaining about the poor receiving financial aid.

You wanna complain about the govt robbing us? Than complain about the massive funds that go to build weapons and bombs which exist only to destroy peoples property, lives and families. considering 50x more money goes to that then it does to help the poor.

 

I dont think you know much about the welfare system in the US... yes it has its problems... but its not something you can be on all your life... there is a limit to how long you can be on welfare and when that time is up you are out of luck... its not some permanent program to provide for people who are lazy.
But it does have its problems... that doesnt mean that money shouldnt go towards helping the poor.

Besides I wasnt even talking just about welfare... you seemed to rule out "all socialist programs" -- which is considerably more than just welfare...

You seem to want to blame only the poor for being poor. People dont choose to be poor, they are born poor... and coming up from poor circumstances and becoming wealthy is something that does NOT happen often at all.

Poverty has a huge effect on peoples education... For instance: poverty causes people to have to move from house to house many times in their life... with no real house that they own eventually they are forced to move into multiple homes... Families who move a lot are more prone to have their kids do bad in school and drop out.

That is a good argument for why we need to legalize drugs and Im glad you brought it up. If drugs were legalized we could look after them more closely and have businesses control them... there wouldnt be anyone jacking people for drugs because the prices would be considerably cheaper.
Robbing people for drugs is much similar to robbing because you are poor, considering most people sell drugs to make an easy dollar... they are relatable... But yer right... crime comes from many different things... Comes from the persons mental state (if they are crazy or not)... but it also comes from their circumstance... poverty is one of these circumstances that increases crime... this is a fact.

There is a big difference between the insanely wealthy and the moderately wealthy... you cannot say "most rich people have worked their way up" because it simply isnt the truth of the matter... Besdies, my whole post wasnt to justify the welfare system in america... and its kinda sad that you cant see that... the purpose for the quote about jill and jack, was to show how the rich steal from the poor every day.. not to justify the welfare system of the US.

hahahaha, you have got to be kidding.
Here is the flaw in your logic:
The majority of people are poor, only the elite few are extremely wealthy... to say that more poor people are lazy means nothing... you are comparing the masses to the elite few... when there are a few millions that are poor and 10 that are wealthy, no shit more poor people are going to be sitting on their asses because there is simply more of them..

But the majority of poor people in the US and around the world are very hard working people... they work hard every day, a lot of them work more than 40 hours a week... and to this day they STILL have shit to show for it... the truth of the matter is that the poor slave away and work damn hard while the rich simply oversee the matters and profit off thebacks and the product in which the poor working under them have made.

So instead of looking at the number of people who sit on their ass, and instead looking at the percentage of people who sit on their ass... you will see a larger percentage of rich people sitting on their ass doing nothing than poor people...

The majority of poor people dont receive much government funding, and work their ass off, and are still poor to this day.

You seem to lump socialist programs into meaning "Only the welfare system of the united states"

My point isnt to justify the welfare system in the US, but to put to end you saying, quote "Welfare and other socialistic programs are proven to fail. Throwing money at the poor has done nothing but increase the number of poor and people relying on the govt."
Which is false.

Im not talking about welfare in my posts, im talking about "Socialistic programs" which have been proven to SUCCEED... which have proven to LOWER CRIMES RATES... which have proven to LOWER THE POVERTY RATE... among other things.. By no means am i trying to justify the united states welfare system... there are better ways to do things than the way we are now.

Also, funny, the fact you cant even spell his first name correctly.
Also, funny, the fact that malcolm x wasn't killed by his "own followers"
If someone had hated malcolm x so much that he wanted to kill him, how could you claim he was a "follower"... that is so nonsensical... the truth is the united states government is responsible for the death of Malcolm X. So many people who had spoke the truth about the united states government have "mysteriously" vanished or have been killed... and i dont believe for a second the stories told by the government in which these people hated for a second.
Malcolm x died for the rights of every man and woman in america... he's a modern day jesus christ.

Quote: Wazir Peacock
"
I was in New York in 1964 getting myself together and I went to some of Malcolm's meetings at the Audubon. The kind of tension that I felt there I'd never felt anywhere before then or since. I felt there were elements there that was like a conspiracy brewing. I think he was assassinated by the United States government and they picked the a time to do it when there was controversy between Malcolm and Elijah Mohammad. I think they planted people there to take him out. Because when Malcolm went to Mecca and came back, he started talking about another kind of thing. Because he went to Mecca, and in Mecca he saw white people. He didn't know that there were white Muslims before that. Malcom had been given a position in the world of Islam. He never got a chance to exercise that. So the State Department had a lot of reasons to take him out.

The same goes with Martin Luther King. It was obvious that there was a conspiracy going to kill him. Starting with everything that happened in Memphis, housing, security forces were moved around and changed. They set it all up. I think Martin knew that there was no escape after seeing things that happened. That's why he gave that speech [the "Been to the Mountain" speech the night before he was murdered]. I think the reason why is that they thought it would stop the movement, especially the way they thought it was going. His philosophy and all was getting to appeal to everybody. That wasn't good for the politicians. He was addressing economic issues and the [Vietnam] war. And he was powerful. He was powerful enough to stop the clock. They had to stop him. I think they'll stop anybody if they can. I think they're watching it close to not let anybody, regardless what color, get that powerful again outside of their control. The "they's" in this case are the bureaus of our government that's gotten out of control and the CIA is one of them. The military industrial complex is out of control. I mean, they run the country. They basically just try to run the world and it's almost got to be a kind of a system that nobody can stop. It runs itself now. They talk about this artificial intelligence. The thing is running itself. "

"Shot down" more like made ignorant broad assumptions that I was talking about welfare.
Giving money to the poor does NOT result in more poverty, it results in less.
Giving money to the poor results in a boost to small businesses
Giving money to the poor results in lower crime rates.
All of these things are true and common knowledge.

Are you naive enough to think I was talking about a "welfare checK"...
Come on people, I talk about socialistic programs and automatically you assume the only thing im talking about is welfare..
the welfare system of the united states wasnt even an idea contrived by socialists!

are you naive enough to think i was talking about a welfare program giving money to the poor to help start businesses?
a socialistic program doesnt automatically mean a welfare system, especially one similar to the one in the US (which isnt very socialistic at all)

There are other socialistic programs out there which give money to the poor other than welfare... but all of you welfare-complainers seem to label EVERYTHING as welfare, seem to label SSI as welfare, disability as welfare, and every single freaking socialistic program as welfare... well its not... sociailistic programs include the very program in which you liked... where people are provided a free ride to college... you seemed to like that program... well guess what... it IS a socialistic program... but its not welfare... and it is helping peoples education, poverty, and crime rates... just as I originally stated..

So stop thinking everytime i back "socialistic programs" than im backing the welfare system of the capitalist united states... im not... there are plenty of other programs out there that are tons more successful.
You can point to the welfare system of the capitalist united states and use that to discredit every socialistic program across the globe, but realize that in doing so you are showing idiocy.


Socialistic programs BESIDES the welfare system of the united states have been extremely successful.
If you look at countries which are actually socialist, and their programs, you will see my original points that they are beneficial for society are indeed true.

You even said yourself that you approve of socialistic programs when you listed the example of the program to get people into college..
Its another socialistic program, its just more well thought out.

I think we agree with more things then u'de think.

Should social programs exist to help the poor? Yes. Should these programs be directed only to people who refuse to work? No. There is a way to make use of these programs in a way that is equal and does not reward people for not having a job... Socialist programs in other countries do not resemble the welfare system int he united states which awards people for being unemployed... although the system in the US is not permanent, and people on welfare know that after a few years they will have to get a job.

 

It is quite hard to starve under the system, but by no means can you be on welfare your entire life, that's my point.

I agree with you.

Certain situations effect people differently, but alas it is definitely much harder to be born poor and rise to become wealthy through good decisions than to be middle class or wealthy and become poor through bad decision making... atleast you have the funds to attend school or start a business... its a sticky situation... you cannot say all poor people are poor because of the choices they make in their life... that is not necessarily true... nor can you say rich people are rich because they've made good decisions... Obviously a persons life is determined by a number of factors... their income, their environment... their mindset... id ont think you can relate it to either thing... its a combination of things, really.

Yes, and that program is a socialistic program. Not all socialistic programs are like the welfare system.

People make bad decisions, but they shouldnt let that determine the outcome of their life.

Yep

Wise words

Im not arguing that rich people dont have college degrees.. but did they get their way through college payed for by their parents? Or did they start as being poor, work a hard ass job more than 40 hours a week to be able to put themselves through college.. .thats the difference... there is glory in getting to college and succeeding by yourself, there isn't if your way is made comfortable and payed for by your parents. A lot of rich people who have kids pay their kids to go through college, than they receive degrees from the best schools and go on to succeed... they were allowed the opportunity to succeed because of the circumstance they were brought up in... for other people its not nearly as easy... i think that's where im coming from.

By giving them assistance when it comes to money you are giving them skills.
For instance, the program you are talking about obviously gives people skills so that they can live their life and succeed... but what funds the program? Money... we couldnt provide people these rides to college without money in the first place... so in order to give people skills, we have to give them money in order to obtain these skills in the first place... so it really goes both ways.

True, the majority are middle class.... but where do these middle class people grow up? Usually the suburbs... and where is most poverty? In the larger inncer city ghettos.. In suburbs and small towns, the cost of living is less... but if you go to downtown new york you will find yourself paying 4 dollars for a hotdog and 2 dollars for a can of snapple... in return, some jobs in the inner cities pay more.. and people from the suburbs take long rides to go work in the cities for larger money... but not all businesses pay people more in the innercities... only the select few, which jobs are taken by people living in the suburbs... for people living in the innercity, whom work at jobs which do not pay much more... maybe they even get paid minimum wage... you cannot support yourself in a large city with a high standard of living such as new york, chicago, any larger city... making only minimum wage.. or a few dollars above it... it just doesnt happen... The people in these inner cities as well as the people in the suburbs BOTH make the decision to work... but the environment they live around effects how well they will succeed... the costs of living in different areas are higher, while the wages in different areas (when it comes down to blue collar jobs) is relatively the same.

yes, it is a fact... a majority of poor pe ople work long hours and are still poor.

Exactly... i agree completely.. but these programs which give people what they NEED are exactly socialistic programs... and these programs only work as long as appropriate funds for them exist.
So in order to give people what they need to succeed, it costs money in the first place... but ultimately it is a better idea to send people to college than to give tham a check to spend as they please..
i agree.

Socialist programs, and socialism, revolve around the ideology of a "need-based society"... socialist programs exist to help people get the skills they need to have a successful life... not to just hand them money and expect them to use it wisely..

Also I must add this kind of off topic commentary... its about programs which expect people to use their money intelligently, instead of using that money for programs in which people never see any money... of course im talking about George Bush's social security reform idea... basically it revolves around the idea that we can expect people to spend their Social Security checks intelligently... do you really think a poor person is gonna spend their social security checks on investing and going to school? No... theyre going to spend it on other things... whether its the rent, drugs -- probably a lot of them are going to make bad decisions with their checks and be left in the dust.

Thats why instead of giving people money we should give them the skills and the education which will bring themselves money... but you have to realize putting people through school costs money in itself.

No country has ever turned into communism through a period of slow socialism. The only countries which claim to be communist in ideology never had the period in which marx claims is necessary... the period of socialism... the ussr wasnt formed over a slow period of socialism, it was formed quickly by totalitarianism and absolutism, that is not communism... china is a capitalist nation, so no need mentioning them... cuba never had a socialist government, they automatically derived themselves into psuedo-absolute-communism... castro never gave up his power, there was no transition between what the governmen towns and what the people collectively own, therefore, no communism.

There are a ton of socialist countries out there with many socialist programs who are doing just fine, who do not have police states, who are not oppressed by their government... Germany, france, there are more out there... these countries also coincidentally have a higher standard of living and have a lower crime rate.

Its a conspiracy theory to believe that those people from the nation of islam killed him. There is much evidence and investigation that suggests that the death of Malcolm X and MLK jr was carried out by the hands of those who control the government.

No, I brought up the one you seemed to enjoy as well... i could bring up other programs which are successful... I only mention american welfare program as an example of a poorly thought out social program contrived by capitalists.

It is still a socialist program because who owns the Lotto... A socialist program doesnt necessarily need to derive its funds from taxs.

And many other socialist programs do not give people cash, instead they do just what you said... they give them a service.. the GOOD socialist programs provide services not money... health care, education, these are the good socialist programs which work.

And the same thing goes to many other socialist programs.. a lot of people who get these programs never see a dime either... but just because they do not give them money directly does not mean they are not socialist programs..
A socialist program is not required to give others money.
It could come in the form of services as well... the program in which you listed is still a socialistic program and I'm glad you seem to support it.

Many people work full time jobs and are underpaid immensley, I do think these people have earned well more than what they have received.

I dont support any system which steals labor and product from a person and profits off of it for his own wealth... its another form of Theft... no greater... no worse. Especially considering the majority who work under american businesses and make the products work in sexually and physically abusive sweatshops where even children work... for next to nothing... so which system of theft is better? I dont wanna get into that argument... again.

 

i think i got that whole dialog started and never mentiond the poor! mui i applaud you you seem to be very knowlageable and articulate beoynd your yrs. now gilligan what do we as a sociaty do with the elderly and disabeld who cannot fish?