|
Posted by inertia on 2007/04/23 14:11:00 |
Keep it non-pretentious, guys. And make sense. |
|
|
Italian Riots
#151 posted by Zwiffle on 2010/12/15 02:35:07
Third World
#152 posted by Baker on 2010/12/15 16:12:41
A won't define a third world country, but a first world country you have:
1. Freedom of thought and political views
2. The right to travel or move
3. A government responsive to public opinion where the government has clearly defined limits
Baker: are you arguing that there isn't any work to be done except changing perspective for those that aren't optimists?
Nope. There is plenty of work to be done.
While I think Western civilization is the best that history has been able to produce up to this point, I'm sure it pales in comparison to what will exist in the future.
In the United States, I am particularly disappointed with the way we have 2 state-sponsored political parties that each have some incredibly great views, some incredibly poor views, and both have consensus agreement on some things that neither should find acceptable at all.
I think in the United States, corporate influence is WAY out of control. It is almost like a partership with the government. One that is on a collision course with absolutely bankrupting the nation. I can't speak for Europe, but Germany is certainly expected to do the heavy financial lifting for Greece, Ireland and such. This is just one issue, there are social justice issues and imaginary rights issues [libel laws, patent system and other IP related matters ... one example: what Mastercard, Visa and Paypal has done with Wikileaks under duress from the US government without any "due process" for reasons that would be unconstitutional (right to free speech) if Wikileaks were US-based) mostly because, as Ron Paul recently said, Wikileaks embarrassed the American government's aspirations of Empire.]
Just Out Of Curiosity
How does publishing stolen classified documents fall under freedom of speech? Disclaimer: I'm not against wikileaks. It's just that that particular argument doesn't make sense to me.
It Actually Falls Under Freedom Of The Press, Supposedly.
#154 posted by metlslime on 2010/12/16 00:07:43
So, Besides Egypt...
#155 posted by Zwiffle on 2011/02/07 23:42:54
Besides not talking about that whole Egypt thing going on, we in America have been ... celebrating? Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, even though he's dead, and a lot of talk about how he's the conservative ideal, while liberals are quick to point out all his negatives.
Not having been alive through Reagan's administration, I'm unsure of all the details, but it seems he's kind of a douche bag.
Any thoughts?
#156 posted by jt_ on 2011/02/07 23:51:21
Conservatism is an empty program, and regan was a war monger.
I hope things go well in egypt, and hope that their dictator is either overthrown or leaves. There's also high hopes for souther sudan seceding from northern sudan.
I need a good synonym for hope, thesaurus.com has failed me.
Reagan and Thatcher were essentially the figure heads for the neo-conservative movement. To de-power unions and labour, and to allow market forces to be unleashed and wealth and power to move further from the people and deeper into private hands.
Either they believed their bullshit, that market forces magically create a utopia for you or they didn't care and knew that it was just about making them and their friends rich. Either way, both were utter cunts.
Yeah
#158 posted by Tronyn on 2011/02/09 03:52:57
just as my detestation of the Bush Administration's "evil neocons manipulating theocrats into supporting them for their own purposes" strategy was beginning to wear off at due to sheer disgust/horror at Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and all that "Tea bag" stuff, I watched "No End in Sight." Jesus Christ is Iraq ever fucked up. Interestingly, the documentary does not assume that failure was a foregone conclusion, but convincingly argues that a number of outcomes were possible, almost all of them much better than what actually happened, due to the Bush administration's cronyism, disdain for expertise and traditional checks and balances, idiots like Rumsfeld and his underlings got to make all the decisions almost unilaterally. Wtf.
Obama proves how much the US system is based on corruption and inertia, since he's changed next to nothing. If winning a landslide right after the bush administration's disaster doesn't give you a mandate to fix some of the problems, what does? What a bunch of status-quo sellouts the obama administration has turned out to be.
My opinion on Ronald Reagan is about the same as Bill Hicks' opinion of him. Same with Rush Limbaugh actually (lol). As for Egypt, I hope things go well, but theocrat militias better not take over ffs, that's largely what's wrong in Iraq.
Zqf
#159 posted by jt_ on 2011/02/09 05:51:22
Conservatism has nothing to do with free markets, it's a philosophy of preserving what exists, rejecting all change. Conservatives end up tacking on a "pro free market" position because it helps them in the polls. If you take a look at the policies that a "liberal" and a "conservative" make, with regards to the economy, they're mostly the same (this is especially true with regan[1][2]).
Neither democrats nor republicans care about what the people think or how free they are, if they did, they would repel the mass of regulations that they have decided are for the peoples "well being." A bureaucrat or politician centralized in D.C. can't know what's "good" for an individual in Washington, Alaska, or any other state. No one knows better what they want and need better than them self.
[1] http://mises.org/daily/5010
[2] http://mises.org/daily/5011
I said neo-conservative I meant neo-liberal...
It's late and I can't sleep okay :p
Also the reason both parties make similar decisions is simply down to the fact they're both essentially the party of wall street. They aren't necessarily pro-free market because it's popular with the masses, it's because that's what those funding them want, and that's what they are selling, so they won't have anything said against it.
I still think it's interesting to wonder what their internal thinking is...
Thatcher was obsessed with Churchill and saw herself as a modern version of him, trying to preserve England and it's power, and this new form of economics seemed to be the way to do it. She quite possibly does think she was doing the best thing at the time, certainly that's the excuse that is trotted out... she did what had to be done.
Whether she believed it herself in the end... actually, given the fact she'll be surrounded by people who adore her, she probably does think she did great things.
The World Is Returning To Fuedlaism
#162 posted by Baker on 2011/02/09 07:17:46
We thought we escaped it. And! For a few centuries, it looked like we did.
But alas we are returning to class rule. But on the up side, we have a little bit of wiggle room with the idea of class mobility.
I guess you take what you can get.
Don't Judge Me By The Typo
#163 posted by Baker on 2011/02/09 07:19:21
Rather judge me by being impatient and not adequately reviewing my spelling. I spelt it wrong. Thanks and goodnight!
|
|
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
|
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.
|
|