Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: Republicans are Ignorant

  1. #1 Republicans are Ignorant 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.[1]
    So..Republicans want less government control, they say?

    They sound like Socialists to me...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Republicans are Ignorant 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.[1]
    So..Republicans want less government control, they say?

    They sound like Socialists to me...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
    Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
    "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
    "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
    "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[3]
    "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
    "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." [5]
    Anarchy is the basic rule of a no rule society.
    Republicans always seemed more like anarchists to me.


    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    the two are not mutually exclusive. anarchy is the opposite of an authoritarian state. socialism can occur in either an authoritarian state (the USSR would be a good example), or in an anarchist society. i'm not sure there have been any examples of the latter.

    republicans want less government control, but they also want free market capitalism, and they oppose systems that benefit the lower classes. evidence for that claim includes their opposition to health care reform, welfare, unemployment benefits, and of course their ideas about trickle down economics.

    so while they might agree with one aspect of anarchist socialism, they would oppose its economic institutions. i don't think there is one thing about authoritarian socialism that agrees with the republican party's platform.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    , and they oppose systems that benefit the lower classes. evidence for that claim includes their opposition to health care reform, welfare, unemployment benefits, and of course their ideas about trickle down economics.
    You have to make a distiction between systems that are intended to benefit the lower classes, and those that actually do. It would be instructive to read member Ludwik Kowalski's biography and find out how he changed from an ardent communist/socialist to an anti-communist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You have to make a distiction between systems that are intended to benefit the lower classes, and those that actually do.
    What do you mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    What do you mean?
    Just a guess: Socialist systems are well-meaning but don't achieve the goals they set out to achieve. Free market capitalist systems are ideologically opposed to special treatment on the basis of need but make things better for the needy anyway because, as we all know, a rising tide floats all boats.

    Or, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Merry Christmas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Okay, I was using hyperbole when I suggested that republicans are anarchists. Considering their passion for economic royalist oligarchies that support anti humanist agendas, obviously republicans are corporatochratists.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    They certainly have the hopeless optimism of an anarchist, in believing that, left alone to itself, the economy will just naturally meet the needs of the least fortunate, with wealthy people racing to donate their excess wealth to every charitable cause, and of course..... those causes not being corrupt to the point of squandering it.

    Of course the opposite extreme sucks too. Totalitarian charity in the form of tax funded welfare programs drains the budget and makes people dependent (because the Welfare providers don't want to be out of a job.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    They certainly have the hopeless optimism of an anarchist, in believing that, left alone to itself, the economy will just naturally meet the needs of the least fortunate,
    They are not as optimistic as those who believe that people will work just as hard, and be just as productive, when all their material needs are met through no effort of their own, and when their extra efforts will not gain them any significantly better standard of living compared to someone who does little or nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Their want of less government control doesn't extend into our private lives where many would outlaw everything except unprotected missionary position between husband and wife who'd learned everything about sex by rumor, unqualified adults and watching pets and farm animals.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Their want of less government control doesn't extend into our private lives where many would outlaw everything except unprotected missionary position between husband and wife who'd learned everything about sex by rumor, unqualified adults and watching pets and farm animals.
    I've seen videos of these simple people living on farms and collecting horse semen. What pervs. If you don't believe me check them out on youtube. They exist in the UK and Germany as well...their ancestors were farmers and clergymen and they carry on their wonderful "traditions". In several videos the people doing the "milking" actually touch the horse's penis in order to "guide it" into an artificial vagina. They are apparently so sexually repressed that animals turn them on. This definitely doesn't represent all Republicans...but all of the farmers I've ever met were Republicans and the conservative dangerous type.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    What is perverse about horse breeding?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    No human being should have so much control over another animal in the first place. Who are we to castrate and tame animals on a whim? I can understand using animals as test subjects when necessary but we don't really need to ride around on horseback anymore, do we? Besides, anyone who touches a horse cock for any reason whatsoever (unless it's sexytime for Heidi Klum and her husband) needs their brain examined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Their want of less government control doesn't extend into our private lives where many would outlaw everything except unprotected missionary position between husband and wife who'd learned everything about sex by rumor, unqualified adults and watching pets and farm animals.
    Their want of less government also doesn't extend to the military, where the bulk of your (discretionary) tax dollars go, and the republicans do not seem eager to cut that at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Their want of less government also doesn't extend to the military, where the bulk of your (discretionary) tax dollars go, and the republicans do not seem eager to cut that at all.
    The military is one of the few things in the federal budget that is actually a legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    The military is one of the few things in the federal budget that is actually a legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government.
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
    http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05...he-war-powers/
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    They certainly have the hopeless optimism of an anarchist, in believing that, left alone to itself, the economy will just naturally meet the needs of the least fortunate,
    They are not as optimistic as those who believe that people will work just as hard, and be just as productive, when all their material needs are met through no effort of their own, and when their extra efforts will not gain them any significantly better standard of living compared to someone who does little or nothing.
    That the problem of totalitarian charity, yes. The bureaucrats in charge have a vested interest in keep their charges dependent on them.

    In a properly constructed welfare system, instead of a threshold standard (where if you make any money you suddenly lose your dole) we would require the person to give back one dollar of aid for every two they make legitimately. They'd be off the dole as soon as they were making twice the value of their original granted check.

    You see? You can indeed have your cake and eat it too. Politics is just so polarized these days that nobody wants to have it both ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In a properly constructed welfare system, instead of a threshold standard (where if you make any money you suddenly lose your dole) we would require the person to give back one dollar of aid for every two they make legitimately. They'd be off the dole as soon as they were making twice the value of their original granted check.
    I think what would happen is, some people would be happy to stay on the dole as long as they have a roof over their head and food on the table and don't have to do anything. Others would get a job and make up to the limit, then stop. Anything after that, and they would be effectively working for half salary.

    But, I didn't just mean welfare or the dole. Any scheme meant to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor will have an adverse effect on the economy. That's because if you tax something, like wealth, you get less of it. With a high marginal tax rate, people have less incentive to increase their income. If a lot of extra effort will only get you a little more money, your leisure time becomes much more important. Hence, less wealth is created.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Their want of less government also doesn't extend to the military, where the bulk of your (discretionary) tax dollars go, and the republicans do not seem eager to cut that at all.
    The military is one of the few things in the federal budget that is actually a legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government.
    Does this mean that you in fact *are* eager to cut funding to the military but feel that you cannot?

    Or is the US constitution merely providing you a convenient excuse to pour more money into your military than the rest of the countries in the world pour into theirs, combined?

    In either case, it hardly makes for 'small government.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Their want of less government also doesn't extend to the military, where the bulk of your (discretionary) tax dollars go, and the republicans do not seem eager to cut that at all.
    The military is one of the few things in the federal budget that is actually a legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government.
    Does this mean that you in fact *are* eager to cut funding to the military but feel that you cannot?

    Or is the US constitution merely providing you a convenient excuse to pour more money into your military than the rest of the countries in the world pour into theirs, combined?

    In either case, it hardly makes for 'small government.'
    Your argument was that the military budget is the "bulk" of discretionary spending.
    That is not necessarily a bad thing if the other discretionary spending, to which it is compared, is not a legitimate function of the federal government.

    No, I am not eager to cut the military budget. We have to stay safe. I don't care what the other countries spend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    No, I am not eager to cut the military budget. We have to stay safe. I don't care what the other countries spend.
    Is it possible for us to review more closely whether or not extra spending actually results in extra safety, especially in context of the way that money is currently being spent?

    Many people (myself included) think that safety is hugely important, but that we are still mistakenly spending tremendous amounts of money on things which protect us from past enemies, not future ones. I also suggest that you are framing the issue far too simplistically. I ask you... Can we not achieve safety with lower spending? Your assertion above posits the exact opposite... That somehow lower spending automatically equates to lower levels of safety. To be frank... That seems a rather silly assertion to make, especially since cost is not the key factor in our safety, but approach and overall strategy are.


    Further, I think very very very solid arguments can be made that the government is responsible for the well-being of the people within our borders in ways that go far beyond military security. I am, of course, referring to more social policies like healthcare and food safety and public roads and other such infrastructure. Your ideology that "military is all that's in the constitution" is certainly one interpretation, but ONE interpretation is all it is.

    That military is "one of the few things in the federal budget that is actually a legitimate Constitutional power of the federal government" is not some sort of absolute truth as you continue to put it forth throughout your posts in these threads, and my argument is well-supported by the Supreme Court of the United States whom our founding fathers put in place to decide on exactly these matters of constitutionality and federal power. You don't get to ignore one of our three primary branches of government simply because you personally disagree with their decisions on these matters... decisions which have been very consistent through time and which have been amplified and reinforced with nearly each new case brought forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    But, I didn't just mean welfare or the dole. Any scheme meant to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor will have an adverse effect on the economy.
    Schemes that bill the rich for the cost of the societal structure they employed in their successful ventures - the educational system, transportation, waterway and aquifer maintenance, public medical and sanitation, and so forth - will have the beneficial effect of maintaining the economy from which they gained their wealth, thereby allowing others to gain wealth in the future (among other benefits to the general public). That helps forestall tyranny of various origins, provides us all with a more prosperous life, and so forth.
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    No, I am not eager to cut the military budget. We have to stay safe.
    The price of a feeling of safety among the most cowardly of any society is too high - it would ruin that society, in debt alone, as well as expose it to a host of dangers created by the "safety" measures themselves.

    Like that guy who wrapped his house in plastic after 9/11, and built up CO2 levels to dangerous heights inside, we are currently suffering from numerous evils created through basing too much of our economy and sociopolitical arrangements on military preparations.

    Safety has to be ascertained, estimated - risks are inevitable, and cannot be reduced to 0. The attempt is almost certain disaster, itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In a properly constructed welfare system, instead of a threshold standard (where if you make any money you suddenly lose your dole) we would require the person to give back one dollar of aid for every two they make legitimately. They'd be off the dole as soon as they were making twice the value of their original granted check.
    I think what would happen is, some people would be happy to stay on the dole as long as they have a roof over their head and food on the table and don't have to do anything. Others would get a job and make up to the limit, then stop. Anything after that, and they would be effectively working for half salary.
    I think you misunderstood what I said. While on the dole, they have to give back 1 dollar for every two they make at a job. IE. if the dole is $500.00 a month, and they get a job at minimum wage (in my state that is $7.50/hr, I think.) working 80 hours a month part time and make $600.00, then they'd have to give back $300.00, and their final income would be $800.00. If they go to full time, and make $1200.00, then giving back half of that would be more than the amount of their dole, so they simply leave the program and keep all $1200.00

    You see what I mean? The limit is built in. It's not an artificial threshold. If the guy working full time really really wants to stay on the dole, then he's free to give the government $600.00 of his hard earned money so he can accept his dole check of $500.00. I don't know why he'd want to, though.




    But, I didn't just mean welfare or the dole. Any scheme meant to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor will have an adverse effect on the economy. That's because if you tax something, like wealth, you get less of it. With a high marginal tax rate, people have less incentive to increase their income. If a lot of extra effort will only get you a little more money, your leisure time becomes much more important. Hence, less wealth is created.
    Yeah. I'm starting to agree with you about progressive taxation. My perspective on economics is that we need to keep everyone above the subsistence level so they have a disposable income. Otherwise there's no market to sell to, and nothing happens. I have no problem with seeing the rich get richer and richer, as long as it doesn't interfere with that happening.

    If it does interfere, then I think wealthy people should be willing to do whatever needs to be done to restore it, because it is their own life blood. Without a prosperous market to sell to, they couldn't put a markup on their goods. They'd all go out of business. Their investments would all fail, and pretty soon they'd be just as poor as the people they didn't want to help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My perspective on economics is that we need to keep everyone above the subsistence level so they have a disposable income. Otherwise there's no market to sell to, and nothing happens. I have no problem with seeing the rich get richer and richer, as long as it doesn't interfere with that happening.
    If the rich get too much richer than everyone else, they choke the economy no matter how much money everyone else has.

    They outbid everyone for discretionary resources, and monopolize them - destroying opportunity, and inefficiently distributing those resources. Think of one of those Caribbean islands where no one but the rich has access to the beach, any food except basics, education beyond grade school, tools and equipment, any land beyond subsistence farming and often not even that, building and workshop facilities, communication infrastructure, electrical power, etc.

    The problem is that without sharply "progressive" taxation, the rich are getting a free ride. They are gaining from the whole infrastructure of society, legal and social and physical, disproportionately, without paying for it - people don't need half that stuff to subsist in poverty. We allow the rich to use a fantastic piece of equipment like the US economy to garner wealth, and if we fail to bill them for the cost of maintaining it - the entire cost, essentially - we will eventually see it fall apart for lack of support.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    If the rich get too much richer than everyone else, they choke the economy no matter how much money everyone else has.

    They outbid everyone for discretionary resources, and monopolize them - destroying opportunity, and inefficiently distributing those resources. Think of one of those Caribbean islands where no one but the rich has access to the beach, any food except basics, education beyond grade school, tools and equipment, any land beyond subsistence farming and often not even that, building and workshop facilities, communication infrastructure, electrical power, etc.
    This is nonsense. If people have money, it is because it was willingly given to them by someone who received something of equal or more value. This is barring criminal activity, but you are not complaining about criminal activity, only that someone has a dollar more than you have.

    In a free society, everybody has an equal opportunity for their share of the pie. All you have to do is get off your ass and produce something that people want to pay for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    In a free society, everybody has an equal opportunity for their share of the pie. All you have to do is get off your ass and produce something that people want to pay for.
    You really think CEOs and a culture of entitlement for example have nothing to do with their climb from making 35 times what an average worker makes in the 1970s to making more than 300 times what an average worker makes now? And often recieve grossly inflated benifits completely disconnected from the performance of their company?

    The other thing we forget as a nation is you might have freedom of oppurtunity in the eyes of the law--which is what freedom means, but large differences in opportunity based on their community's support structure such as education.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    All you have to do is get off your ass and produce something that people want to pay for.
    Sometimes Harold, I think you have never worked in a large corporation, or a small one, or even one that was medium sized. Or for your cousin. Or considered those who have a characteristic unpopular in the region - an accent, a skin colour, a religion, a disability.

    Anyway, it must have been exciting going to different schools with Ayn Rand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I have worked for a corporation and do work for one. If I was dissatisfied doing that, I would have nobody to blame but myself, as there is nobody forcing me to work there. I am quite free to find another job or go into business for myself.

    The same applies for CEOs. If you don't like that your CEO makes more money than you, then you can look for another job. It would be a foolish thing to choose a job based on what your CEO makes. Most people would just base it on what they make, or their own working conditions. That would be the rational way of doing it.

    If it is a CEO of a different company you are concerned about, then don't buy their product or service. Again, that is a silly criteria. Your personal interest would be served by purchasing based on price and quality.

    If the person is a CEO of a company with which you have no dealings, then his salary is of no concern to you whatsoever. It is really not any of your business. You are just being envious and vindictive.

    Ayn Rand was right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Ayn Rand was right.
    Funny. It's always black and white, right or wrong with that crowd. Shades of gray? Nuance? Variability along a spectrum of possibility? Nope... not so much.



    http://chronicle.com/article/Debunking-Ayn-Rands/43714/

    A few weeks ago, The Chronicle published a package of articles on Ayn Rand's academic legacy. The articles set Steve Gimbel, an associate professor of philosophy at Gettysburg College, thinking.

    "You see, when you get on an airplane for a cross-country flight as a philosopher, you would much rather be seated next to the person who suffers from intense airsickness the entire way than the white guy who turns and says, 'Oh, I'm kind of a philosopher, too. I LOVE Ayn Rand.'"

    As you can tell, Gimbel is not a fan of Rand's philosophy of free-market economics and egoistic ethics. "If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny," Gimbel writes, "what's left are the writings of Ayn Rand."

    And Gimbel is just getting started. He goes on to explain -- in great detail -- why Rand's work acts a "narcotic to the upper-middle-class white male of above-average means and intelligence."





    http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03...ra-2009-7.html

    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
    [/quote]Brilliant.

    Indeed these are two of my three favourite books. I greatly admire Atlas Shrugged. It's just a pity Rand was so completely and overwhelmingly wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Prosoothus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    19
    Well, what I learned over the years by observing politics is that Republicanism is a two-level philosophy.

    At the core level, it's simply greed and selfishness. The reasons Republicans want smaller government is because they're rich, or they represent the rich, and the rich don't need social services like welfare, medicare, social security, public education, etc.

    Unfortunately, this core philosophy won't get them into office since most people aren't rich. A politician won't get elected by promising to help the rich. That's why Republicanism needs a second superficial layer.

    The second layer, which covers and hides the core level, is what enables Republicans to get elected. You see, Republicans need to attract stupid people who can't see what Republicans really stand for. Since a lot of stupid people live in the south, the Republican Party uses issues that would mobilize those people to vote for them. Since stupid people tend to be religious and inflexible, Republicans decided that they would use moral and conservative issues to con those ignorant people into electing them into office.

    In conclusion, Republicans don't stand for anything except money. Either they're rich, and they only want to help themselves. Or they're whores for other rich people that contribute money to their election campaigns. I just feel sorry for the poor, or working-class, suckers that keep electing Republicans into office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    A majority of Republicans do not believe in evolution. Why should we trust them with the economy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Especially when the economy has tended to do worse under them than their democratic colleagues.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/ma...idealab-t.html
    Despite the historic magnitude of this shift, inequality has thus far had little traction as a political issue. Many Americans seem to accept the conservative view that escalating inequality reflects “free market” forces immune to amelioration through public policy. As Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put it, perhaps a bit defensively, the growing income gap “is simply an economic reality, and it is neither fair nor useful to blame any political party.” Paulson’s assertion, however, is strongly contradicted by the historical record. While technology, demographic trends and globalization are clearly important, purely economic accounts ignore what may be the most important influence on changing U.S. income distribution — the contrasting policy choices of Republican and Democratic presidents.

    The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

    There is no secret about any of this. The figures below are all from the annual Economic Report of the President, and the analysis is primitive. Nevertheless, what these numbers show almost beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans.

    In other words, there are no figures here about income inequality, or percentage of the population with health insurance, or anything like that. This exercise implicitly assumes that lower taxes are always good and higher government spending is always bad. There is nothing here about how clean the air is or how many children are growing up in poverty. The only point is that if you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic. Of course, if you do care about things like economic inequality and children's health, you should vote Democratic as well.


    While the above is supplemental to Bunbury's point, below is supportive:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/re...eationism.aspx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I'm sensing a lot of hate against Republicans on this thread. Aren't you fellows afraid to set off some crazed killers? Better tone down the rhetoric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm sensing a lot of hate against Republicans on this thread. Aren't you fellows afraid to set off some crazed killers? Better tone down the rhetoric.
    Don't you EVEN go there. VERY inappropriate. How were you selected to be a moderator? Your immature attitude exemplifies what intelligent people hate about Repubs: a sense of arrogant pride in entirely baseless "facts" fed to you by politicians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Harold, it's not hate: it's just a matter of logic. If someone does not "get" evolution then I have severe doubts as to that person's ability to think rationally about other complex subjects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus
    The second layer, which covers and hides the core level, is what enables Republicans to get elected. You see, Republicans need to attract stupid people who can't see what Republicans really stand for. Since a lot of stupid people live in the south, the Republican Party uses issues that would mobilize those people to vote for them. Since stupid people tend to be religious and inflexible, Republicans decided that they would use moral and conservative issues to con those ignorant people into electing them into office..
    I think you vastly under estimate that most libertarians, that don't give one whit about the moral issues also tend to be Republicans. They think that by definition the government tends to be inherently inefficient and many of it's functions either shouldn't be done at all by government or can be done better by private business. I know this because I am one--a dying breed--a moderate republican.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Don't you EVEN go there. VERY inappropriate. How were you selected to be a moderator? Your immature attitude exemplifies what intelligent people hate about Repubs: a sense of arrogant pride in entirely baseless "facts" fed to you by politicians.
    Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    What are you talking about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    What are you talking about?
    It means I am calling you out on your overheated rhetoric, just like the Democrats are trying to pin the Giffords shooting on Republican rhetoric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Relax, guys. If nothing else, we've seen how unrestrained hatred can lead to a climate where more and more people will decide to engage in violent acts.






    http://www.farleftside.com/2011/1-10-2011.html
    If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web with crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now? Just asking. - Michael Moore

    A physician cannot treat an illness s/he willfully refuses to diagnose. Violent political rhetoric is not fault of "both sides." - Tom Tomorrow

    Inspiring that our media pundits are so quick to reach for "everyone's to blame" when no conservative events have been terrorized by gunmen. - Jeffrey Feldman

    Weird: rightwingers say movies, video games affect behavior -- but real world violent rhetoric from leaders & radio talkers have NO impact! - Tom Tomorrow

    Jared Lougnner: drug arrests, too crazy for Army or for college or anything else, but getting a legal gun? No problem. - Tom Tomorrow

    I find it abhorrent that Sarah Palin would stoke the coals of extremism with dangerous messaging, then delete it when something bad happens. - Jason Pollock

    Sure, Sarah Palin didn't pull the trigger. But then, neither did Charles Manson. - auntbeast

    Christina Taylor Green was Born on September 11, 2001, and killed today by terrorist fuckheads in Arizona. Irony much? - geeksofdoom

    Sarah Palin rummages online frantically erasing her rabble-rousing Tweets like a Stalinist trimming non-persons out of photos. - Roger Ebert

    I'll say this, if your first instinct after hearing about a tragedy is to scrub yr websites, you have a problem as a political movement. - digby56

    CNN's Dana Bash says "this could be a wake-up call." THIS ... ? The whole Tea Party, carrying guns to rallies WASN'T?? - hololio2

    Teaparty asses have been asking for this to happen, and how they're pissed off that we're calling them out on it. - TLW3

    STOP SAYING"BOTH PARTIES"!! The Left has not been advocating Violence. @CNN assholes. - YatPundit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    What are you talking about?
    It means I am calling you out on your overheated rhetoric, just like the Democrats are trying to pin the Giffords shooting on Republican rhetoric.
    I never blamed that idiot Palin for anything...other than being an idiot. Don't worry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    What are you talking about?
    It means I am calling you out on your overheated rhetoric, just like the Democrats are trying to pin the Giffords shooting on Republican rhetoric.
    Do you feel that Republican rhetoric would have tended to reduce the risks that such a shooting would occur? Do you think that Palin's public attitude was conducive to reasonable debate? How do you feel about her post shooting actions?

    Tell you what, never mind. As gottspeiler says, she's just an idiot. What worries me are the people who don't recognise that.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: Republicans are Ignorant 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Socialism is characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.[1]
    So..Republicans want less government control, they say?

    They sound like Socialists to me...
    That's out of the Marxist encyclopedia. Just rewritten by who ever made the entry. Just because that organization says that is what they mean, doesn't make it so. Political organizations lie all the time.


    Marxist Internet Archives

    Marxist encyclopedia: Socialism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Prosoothus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus
    The second layer, which covers and hides the core level, is what enables Republicans to get elected. You see, Republicans need to attract stupid people who can't see what Republicans really stand for. Since a lot of stupid people live in the south, the Republican Party uses issues that would mobilize those people to vote for them. Since stupid people tend to be religious and inflexible, Republicans decided that they would use moral and conservative issues to con those ignorant people into electing them into office..
    I think you vastly under estimate that most libertarians, that don't give one whit about the moral issues also tend to be Republicans. They think that by definition the government tends to be inherently inefficient and many of it's functions either shouldn't be done at all by government or can be done better by private business. I know this because I am one--a dying breed--a moderate republican.
    Well, I respect your beliefs, but I think that you shouldn't call yourself a "Republican". True Republicans aren't against big government because it's inefficient, but because the rich have no need for the services it provides.

    I, unlike you, don't make a distinction between "government" and "the people". I don't believe that government is a separate entity (even though it acts that way sometimes), but that it's just the executive arm of the people. Kind of how a jury is the executive arm of the people in the courtroom.

    As for your statement that sometimes private business can do things more efficiently than the government, I can agree with you about that. But don't forget that the sole purpose of private business is to make a profit, and running a society successfully requires much more than making a profit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus
    The second layer, which covers and hides the core level, is what enables Republicans to get elected. You see, Republicans need to attract stupid people who can't see what Republicans really stand for. Since a lot of stupid people live in the south, the Republican Party uses issues that would mobilize those people to vote for them. Since stupid people tend to be religious and inflexible, Republicans decided that they would use moral and conservative issues to con those ignorant people into electing them into office..
    I think you vastly under estimate that most libertarians, that don't give one whit about the moral issues also tend to be Republicans. They think that by definition the government tends to be inherently inefficient and many of it's functions either shouldn't be done at all by government or can be done better by private business. I know this because I am one--a dying breed--a moderate republican.
    Well, I respect your beliefs, but I think that you shouldn't call yourself a "Republican". True Republicans aren't against big government because it's inefficient, but because the rich have no need for the services it provides..
    All I can say is it's unfortunate you don't seem aware of the millions of Republicans who share similar views as I have. You'll find them in large numbers in New England small towns, the same ones who tear up as they echo the moto on their license plates "live free or die." The same kind that refuse food stamps and unemployment because their too proud to accept the help. The same kind that who are infatic that the government's responsibilities should limited to a narrow scope of things like defense and enforcing the concept of ones rights end where someones rights begin and being the safety net for only the most desperate. they also understand that broad solutions from a thousand miles away often don't work at the local level but welcome a government who's flexible enough to listen to their local concerns and adapt their solutions based on those local needs. I've run into a few in Washington State as well who share my views.

    There are still a few in the government as well--folks like Olympia snow.

    And I utterly hate the monopolization of the party by the anti-intellectual religious nut jobs.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    All I can say is it's unfortunate you don't seem aware of the millions of Republicans who share similar views as I have. You'll find them in large numbers in New England small towns, the same ones who tear up as they echo the moto on their license plates "live free or die." The same kind that refuse food stamps and unemployment because their too proud to accept the help. The same kind that who are infatic that the government's responsibilities should limited to a narrow scope of things like defense and enforcing the concept of ones rights end where someones rights begin and being the safety net for only the most desperate. they also understand that broad solutions from a thousand miles away often don't work at the local level but welcome a government who's flexible enough to listen to their local concerns and adapt their solutions based on those local needs. I've run into a few in Washington State as well who share my views.

    There are still a few in the government as well--folks like Olympia snow.

    And I utterly hate the monopolization of the party by the anti-intellectual religious nut jobs.
    Yeah, it's unfortunate that those people have been hijacked as they have. Now they have no voice at all.

    They won't get it back either. Fascists go after people who are close to their ideology without absolutely mimicking it far more viciously than they go after people who stand on the other side of the isle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I have worked for a corporation and do work for one. If I was dissatisfied doing that, I would have nobody to blame but myself, as there is nobody forcing me to work there. I am quite free to find another job or go into business for myself.
    Clearly you do not understand the concept of a desperation wage (and have never experienced it). Only the middle class and upper middle class believe they are free to just walk away whenever they want.

    The people at the bottom of the pyramid can't afford to be out of work for more than a week if they want to keep their apartment and avoid homelessness (which would make finding their next job nearly impossible). Most them work 2 or more part time jobs (so their employers don't have to give them benefits) and don't honestly have time to go out hunting for them. Besides the fatigue on their bodies.

    The same applies for CEOs. If you don't like that your CEO makes more money than you, then you can look for another job. It would be a foolish thing to choose a job based on what your CEO makes. Most people would just base it on what they make, or their own working conditions. That would be the rational way of doing it.
    No. They're just mad about how little they get from the pool of income. If the CEO makes 300 times what you make, then how much do you think the VP's are draining out of it? How about the upper level managers?

    The company's income flows in as a pooled result of all the labor that was done. When a customer buys a product, they're not buying any one, particular person's labor. So clearly getting a severely uneven cut should be infuriating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The company's income flows in as a pooled result of all the labor that was done. When a customer buys a product, they're not buying any one, particular person's labor. So clearly getting a severely uneven cut should be infuriating.
    On a football team, the quarterback makes the most money. That's because he has a lot more to do with the success of the team than the offensive linemen or other players on the team. The offensive linemen are important, but there are enough of them around who are good enough, that it doesn't make sense for a general manager to spend his salary cap on offensive linemen. His team will get beaten badly by the general manager who pays for the top qb talent. That is just the way it is.

    The CEO is making big decisions that affect the whole company. If you are smart, you pay your CEO well, and attract the top talent. Also by doing that, you have the middle and upper managers working their asses off to become the CEO. It's good business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The company's income flows in as a pooled result of all the labor that was done. When a customer buys a product, they're not buying any one, particular person's labor. So clearly getting a severely uneven cut should be infuriating.
    On a football team, the quarterback makes the most money. That's because he has a lot more to do with the success of the team than the offensive linemen or other players on the team. The offensive linemen are important, but there are enough of them around who are good enough, that it doesn't make sense for a general manager to spend his salary cap on offensive linemen. His team will get beaten badly by the general manager who pays for the top qb talent. That is just the way it is.

    The CEO is making big decisions that affect the whole company. If you are smart, you pay your CEO well, and attract the top talent. Also by doing that, you have the middle and upper managers working their asses off to become the CEO. It's good business.
    True, but there's a good reason every sports league has a salary cap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Why are you using the verbiage of Wikipedia without checking out the source? The source that claims that what republicans are comes from a Marxist site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    It is obviously meant to relate to marxist Communism as many Republicans use the terms socialism/communism interchangeably.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Maybe a little closer to the intended topic is the satire below.


    http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...-that-w,19025/

    Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth

    <...>

    "This law is a job killer," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who argued the tax increases required to save the human species from annihilation would impose unbearably high costs on businesses. "If we sit back and do nothing, Obamastroid will result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, which we simply can't afford in this economy."

    <...>

    "While I recognize that intelligent minds may disagree on this issue, I believe we have an obligation to prevent our citizens from having their flesh seared off in a global firestorm that transforms our planet into a broiling molten wasteland," Obama added. "I think Americans deserve better."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Ignorant 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1
    hey

    this is nice post but however, what roles are played by various sorts of internal organisational structures, especially when somehow related to political change. .....

    regards,
    $hady !!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •