Oct 142010
For all the drubbing O’Donnell is getting over her religious nuttery, this is just as nutty:
33 Responses to ““Prayer circles” keeping “spirits clean””
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
For all the drubbing O’Donnell is getting over her religious nuttery, this is just as nutty:
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“The spirits clean”??? Really???
I agree; McDonnel critics are immediately obliged to either start criticizing Michelle or shut up.
You have no idea how safe I feel today.
Aren’t “spirits” kinda pagan? Not even Muslim. Certainly not Baptist.
Americans are crazy.
Agreed, as a nation we’re kinda nutty. But when you compare us to just about everyone else in the world, we come off as the responsible kid in a family of schizophrenics.
Very debatable. I’d actually liken America to a nation of adolescents who refuse to grow up and who are continually going through puberty. The lack of national and all too often individual maturity is telling. However, that is, I admit a gross generalisation.
> The lack of national and all too often individual maturity is telling.
Well, sure. And hense, the increasing tendency towards socialism.
But as I’ve said, as bad as we are, we’re still far better than most. Going with your changed metaphor, most of the world, compared to the US as an adolescent, is composed of screeching toddlers, banging each other over the head with toys and trying to take each others stuff, and then screaming for mommy when it happens to them.
What is with you and your fear of socialism or even a collective response to any problem? You remind me of Margaret Thatcher who stupidly once declared that there is no such thing as society, only individuals. Yeah, right, Maggie (who as a great defender of European civilisation appears to have lost the plot rather badly).
A society is judged by how well it treats those less well off. Capitalism does really badly at that, treating people as industrial cannonfodder who can be used and then ignored when no longer required.
The US does very badly by its poor. Very badly – despite all this supposed galloping socialism that you’re being subjected to.
As for the “rest of the world”, those of us who live out here, in reality do quite well and don’t appeal to the US for anything. You focus on the noisy minority, rather than the healthy majority. You’re like one of those adolescents who focus endlessly on squeezing their zits, combing their hair, primping themselves in the mirror while they are whining about how badly their parents have treated them and how no one understands them…
When you learn that the universe doesn’t revolve around your navel, perhaps you might have matured as a society.
> What is with you and your fear of socialism or even a collective response to any problem
Several hundred million *murdered* in just one century thanks to collectivism will do that.
> A society is judged by how well it treats those less well off. Capitalism does really badly at that
Yes, that’s the lie promoted by collectivists who know that the way to increase the wealth of everyone in a society is free enterprise, but want to grab onto as much power as they can.
> The US does very badly by its poor.
The US government? Yes, it does. Due to the massive welfare state created byt the New Deal and the Great Society programs, several generations of poor have been trapped into dependency upon the state. “The poor” would have been far better off with a far smaller government.
The true metric of how well one treats the poor is *not* how many of them you provide how many goodies… but how many of them you get *off* the dole, and get to provide for themselves.
Socialism, the anti-human cancer that must be rooted out at the genetic level. Every adherent to this sick a$$ed religion has to be wiped out of the human race. In the immortal words of Malcolm X, by any means necessary.
Oh, and Michelle. What a f**king loser. 14 years of “higher education” pissed away for nothing.
That was my first reaction, twohotel9. But then I realized that she’s a product of a centralized education system that promotes ego over competence and tribal membership over individual identity.
Interesting, why did you allow twohotel9’s comment through? His comment is an excellent example of outright racism – a belief in biological determinism. Do you approve of such beliefs? It appears so. A view that people should be murdered for political or apparent genetic makeup. I’m shocked, isn’t this what you accuse all members of the Left advocating? No criticism, no comment. Tsk, tsk.
“Several hundred million *murdered* in just one century thanks to collectivism will do that.”
You appear to mistake oppression for “collectivism” and equate any societal response to anything as “collectivism”. Very strange political logic. So, if a community organises to establish a school together, is that “collectivism”? What if they decide they need to protect their town from a flood and build a levee, is that “collectivism”? What if a nation decides it needs a welfare system? is that “collectivism”?
“Yes, that’s the lie promoted by collectivists who know that the way to increase the wealth of everyone in a society is free enterprise, but want to grab onto as much power as they can.”
No lie. It is how people judge a society. You mistreat those who through circumstance are less well off it reflects badly on you as individuals _and_ as a society. I’m not interested in power. I am interested in making sure that people get the best opportunities and the best help to realise those opportunities. You however appear paranoid at anybody getting help when they need it. Tell me, do you think people with physical handicaps should be left in the gutter to die? Thats the level of your thinking it seems.
“The US government? Yes, it does. Due to the massive welfare state created byt the New Deal and the Great Society programs, several generations of poor have been trapped into dependency upon the state. “The poor” would have been far better off with a far smaller government”
Just because your government has failed in the past, that does not mean they will fail in the future. Other nations appear to manage to do so much better than American government. I wonder why? Is it because Americans are incompetent. I suspect not. I wonder, could it be because of weird political system you’ve developed? Your fear of any collective, societal response to a problem? Could be.
“The true metric of how well one treats the poor is *not* how many of them you provide how many goodies… but how many of them you get *off* the dole, and get to provide for themselves.”
I agree wholeheartedly. See, we both seek the same objective. Just our methods of achieving it are different, thats all. Is my method best? Perhaps, maybe not. Is your method best? Perhaps, maybe not. Considering the success of social welfare programmes outside the US, I rather suspect your belief in dog-eat-dog, lassaire faire capitalism doesn’t work all that well. Experience has shown that it just ends up in a far greater divide between rich and poor and more people who can’t escape poverty, who can’t get off the dole and aren’t allowed to provide for themselves.
> why did you allow twohotel9′s comment through?
I didn’t allow it, anymore more than I “allowed” this comment of yours through. Once the first comment by someone is approved, all following comments go through automatically. That said… twohotel9, knock off the death threats. That sort of crap *will* get you banned here. Leave the raving looney violence to the Left. That’s their turf.
> His comment is an excellent example of outright racism – a belief in biological determinism.
Perhaps we’re seeing different posts. I see no reference to race in his posts, just religion/politics. Religion and political views ain’t race.
> No criticism, no comment.
Hadn’t gotten around to it. I don;t spend all my time monitoring this blog and its commenters, you know.
> You appear to mistake oppression for “collectivism”
Enforced collectivism *is* oppression. And in the 20th century, we saw two great evils: fascism and communism. These two ideologies managed to murder people on a scale and with a determined ruthlessness never before seen. And both are quite clearly collectivist ideologies.
> You mistreat those who through circumstance are less well off it reflects badly on you as individuals _and_ as a society.
Yes, the US mistreats its poor… by providing so much care for them. It would be no mistreatment of the poor to do *nothing* for them, good or ill, but to let them make their way on their own. Ben Franklin had it right more than 200 years ago:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ”
> Just because your government has failed in the past, that does not mean they will fail in the future.
A legacy of failure stretching back unbroken to the 1930’s is hardly likely to change anytime soon, without a wholesale elimination of the programs that at one moment both stifle the economy and encourage dependence.
> Other nations appear to manage to do so much better than American government.
Do they? By what objective measure?
> Considering the success of social welfare programmes outside the US, I rather suspect your belief in dog-eat-dog, lassaire faire capitalism doesn’t work all that well.
How do you defien “success” in terms of social welfare?
> Experience has shown that it just ends up in a far greater divide between rich and poor and more people who can’t escape poverty, who can’t get off the dole and aren’t allowed to provide for themselves.
That’s odd. Experience *here* shows that providing social welfare programs *traps* people onto the dole. The same certainly seems to apply in Britain, France and pretty much everywhere else as well.
As for the gap between rich and poor: bring it on. More than a century ago, a factory worker might make a few dollars per week… and yet the US had self-made *billionaires.* This would be pretty much akin to *trillionaires* today. Has the gap grown? No, the richest have gotten porrer, while the poor have cars, TVs and air conditioning. And while the richest have gotten poorer, far more have entered the realm of the “super rich.” The more, the better..
Admin says: COMMENT DELETED
Once again, death threats and/or threats of violence are NOT PERMITTED HERE.
>That’s odd. Experience *here* shows that providing social welfare programs *traps* people onto the dole. The same certainly seems to apply in Britain, France and pretty much everywhere else as well.
Yet it is not the experience in Australia, Germany and other places in Europe and around the world. Perhaps your problem is that you only look at the outcomes that support your premise that “all Government is evil”?
A flawed program design will always perform badly. A well designed program will perform better. I like living in a society where we “collectively” help one another and have a social welfare net that helps people back on their feet if they are the victims of the economy. You, however appear to be championing the idea that once a person is laid off, they should be discarded by society. No quid pro quo or social contract in your views seems to exist.
If a society has no direction, then obviously it will fail to maintain its standard of living and most importantly will not, as the US economy has shown, restructure itself to meet new challenges, preferring instead to keep its head in the ground.
> your premise that “all Government is evil”?
Interesting. Do you also believe that religion = race?
I’m always amazed by people who see any dissention against horrible government policies and programs as being against *all* government. How such people can leap to such obviously flawed conclusion escapes me, but there sure do seem to be a lot of ’em about.
> You, however appear to be championing the idea that once a person is laid off, they should be discarded by society.
And by your logic, you seem to believe that government should be so massive that it taxes businesses out of existence so that those businesses will lay off all the workers, and the government will then provide for all the needs and desires of those workers for the rest of their lives.
Fun game, ain’t it!
A “social safety net” is a fine thing. Just as a cradle is a fine thing. But just as a person should not stay in the cradle forever, and just as a person should get booted out of the family home at around the age of 18, a person should be neither encouraged nor allowed to spend longer than is absolutely necessary in the arms of a “social safety net.”
> If a society has no direction, then obviously it will fail to maintain its standard of living and most importantly will not, as the US economy has shown, restructure itself to meet new challenges, preferring instead to keep its head in the ground.
And who exactly determines what “direction” a society takes? In the US, those in power have for the last several generations determined that American society should take the direction of European-style socialism and central planning. The direct result of that was the housing bubble that inevitably burst and wrecked the economy. Had there been less government-directing Creationism and more market-force Evolution, there would ahve been no bubble and no subsequent collapse.
>Interesting. Do you also believe that religion = race?
No. I reject the concept of race. There are more differences within the so-called “races” than there are between them, genetically. There is only one race and its the human one.
>I’m always amazed by people who see any dissention against horrible government policies and programs as being against *all* government.
How such people can leap to such obviously flawed conclusion escapes me, but there sure do seem to be a lot of ‘em about.
You’re the one who rants and raves against “collectivism” and any effort by society to help its members when they need help. If it walks like a duck…
> And by your logic, you seem to believe that government should be so massive that it taxes businesses out of existence so that those businesses will lay off all the workers, and the government will then provide for all the needs and desires of those workers for the rest of their lives.
Do I? Where have I proposed that? I have proposed that there is a social contract amongst all entities within society – government, business, individuals, etc. Individuals should work towards their own betterment and pay taxes to support society and provide services which they utilise. When conditions make that difficult, the government has a responsibility to help them with the taxes that have been collected. Business also benefits society’s provision of infrastructure, services and protection. They also benefit from the individual’s labour so they should help support them when the individual needs it. This is all hung together through government. Everybody tries to do their part and help each other.
It appears from your comments that you’re anti-government, anti-society, anti-welfare, anti-“collectivism”, anti-everything. I’ve been reading your blog now for about 18 months, off and on and I’ve yet to see you post a positive story about government – except when its cracking down on someone, somewhere.
Tell me, when was the last time did you drive on a public road? Glad it existed? Enjoyed the (relatively) smooth ride? Its ability to transport you from point to point? Another benefit of collectivism.
When was the last time you road a train or an aeroplane? More benefits of collectivism! Crossed a bridge on a public road lately? Been to school or perhaps even university? All benefits of collectivism! Been ill or had a family member so ill they had to be admitted to a public hospital? Collectivism, again at work!
>Fun game, ain’t it!
Sure is. Always watching your balloon deflate.
>A “social safety net” is a fine thing. Just as a cradle is a fine thing. But just as a person should not stay in the cradle forever, and just as a person should get booted out of the family home at around the age of 18, a person should be neither encouraged nor allowed to spend longer than is absolutely necessary in the arms of a “social safety net.”
Couldn’t agree more. However from your comments you’re against any social safety net being provided at all. One of the problems with most social safety nets is that they penalise the person receiving them if they attempt to move off them. I’m in favour of one which rewards them, so they have an incentive to stop receiving benefits and it actively helps them to get back to work by providing retraining, child care, etc. Once they are ajudged to be on their own feet, it cuts out completely.
> And who exactly determines what “direction” a society takes?
Government. You know, the organisation which is elected to represent the nation by the people? It identifies national needs, directs resources to fulfill them and then makes sure that they are working. Appears to work reasonably well in my nation. Its not perfect but then, no political system is.
What is it about yours where it seems unable to?
>In the US, those in power have for the last several generations determined that American society should take the direction of European-style socialism and central planning. The direct result of that was the housing bubble that inevitably burst and wrecked the economy. Had there been less government-directing Creationism and more market-force Evolution, there would ahve been no bubble and no subsequent collapse.
Central planning, ooooooh, the great bug bear! Oh, dear. The function of government is to plan, to control, to direct the nation’s resources and hence economy. Only someone had no understanding of modern economics would conclude otherwise. That doesn’t mean it has to control markets, nor individual’s wealth. Rather it means it utilises the funds available to it from taxation.
So your government got it wrong? Kick the bums out. Ooops, you did but you appear to still be unhappy with the peoples’ choice. Thats democracy for you. Oh, well, your bed and all that. Not that the previous Republican government was any good at this sort of thing either – it failed to reform the banking sector, the industrial sector, the you-name-it sector while it had the chance. Instead it preferred invading other countries.
> from your comments you’re against any social safety net being provided at all.
See, this is where you and those who believe as you do fall right down. I *do* believe in social safety nets. The kind that can be run quite well by churches, foundations, corporations and other private groups.
“The only recourse someone in trouble has is The Government” is *your* belief system, not mine.
I know you’re not an American, so you may not understand the concept of a Constitutional government… you know, a government that sets upa system of laws to limit *itself,* and lives within those laws. Sadly, neither does the US government understand the concept of a constitutional government.
Simialrly, you don’t seem to understand the difference between voluntary collectivism and mandatory collectivism. One of those is just fine. The other, as with all forms of oppression, is evil.
> I’ve yet to see you post a positive story about government
This is a personal blog, not a news service. “Ain’t that nice” bores me. “Holy crap we’re all gonna die” is of somewhat increased interest to me. A government that runs a defecit of two trillion dollars in *one* *friggen* *year* falls rather more into the latter category.
And if you’ve somehow been reading my blog for all these months and missed the fact that I thought that NASA marching forward and kicking ass in manned space flight a few decades back was a good thing… well, don’t know what to tell ya.
> What is it about yours where it seems unable to?
It’s too big by an order of magnitude at the very least.
> See, this is where you and those who believe as you do fall right down. I *do* believe in social safety nets. The kind that can be run quite well by churches, foundations, corporations and other private groups.
That is not a social safety net, thats charity. Where the individual has to debase themselves so that they _might_ get help. A social safety net is part of the social contract. You work hard when you can and pay tax and when you can’t work, society will support you. Simple really and it works, if organised well.
>I know you’re not an American, so you may not understand the concept of a Constitutional government…
Such condescension. Other nations do have Constitutions, you realise? Considering that your own is derived from the British Constitution of 1688, you should be careful about who you’re looking down your nose at.
>you know, a government that sets upa system of laws to limit *itself,* and lives within those laws. Sadly, neither does the US government understand the concept of a constitutional government.
You mean like how it sets up laws which forbid its employees from torturing people and then sets out to circumvent them? Like the laws which prevent it from spying on its own citizens and then ignores them? So much for the laws which limit what your government does…
>Simialrly, you don’t seem to understand the difference between voluntary collectivism and mandatory collectivism. One of those is just fine. The other, as with all forms of oppression, is evil.
Oh, I understand them but you are the one who keeps bleating on about “collectivism” and fails to qualify your comments. If you mean “mandatory collectivism” then say “mandatory collectivism”. Otherwise people who write and read English apparently much better than you will always assume that you just mean “collectivism” in its most basic form when you type “collectivism” as being the root of all evil in your opinion.
Remember that social contract? You can always opt out of it. Personally, I’d love to allow people to opt out if they so desire. Of course, doing so might mean they can no longer use anything that is publicly funded, be it roads, railways, bridges, hospitals, clinics, schools, etc. No picking and choosing, either you’re in or you’re out.
> This is a personal blog, not a news service. “Ain’t that nice” bores me.
So, in otherwords you have a negative viewpoint about government and society in general. Thank you for proving my point for me. You just wish to keep on “wit’ them negative waves”.
>“Holy crap we’re all gonna die” is of somewhat increased interest to me. A government that runs a defecit of two trillion dollars in *one* *friggen* *year* falls rather more into the latter category.
And yet you keep blaming the Democrats rather than sheeting the blame home where it belongs – the Republicans. A party which oversaw in 8 years a MASSIVE growth in government and spending. A party that thought it would be nicer to pour several trillion dollars into foreign wars without regard as to what it would do to your domestic economy. What was it Clinton used to have on his campaign wall? Oh, thats right, “its the economy stupid!”
>And if you’ve somehow been reading my blog for all these months and missed the fact that I thought that NASA marching forward and kicking ass in manned space flight a few decades back was a good thing… well, don’t know what to tell ya.
NASA? Ooooh, that nasty collectivist organisation!!!!!!!! Bah, what hypocrisy. When its the boondoggle you like, space travel, “collectivism” is OK.
> It’s too big by an order of magnitude at the very least.
Size has nothing to do with it. Organisation or failure to undertake it effectively does though.
> That is not a social safety net, thats charity. Where the individual has to debase themselves so that they _might_ get help.
Oh, boo fricken hoo. If your pride prevents you froma skign for help, then you don’t really need help. And what’s worse about askign for people who are giving out help of their own free will using resources gladly and freely donated for that purpose, than demanding help from people who have no choice but to pay up or go to jail?
> So much for the laws which limit what your government does…
Which has been my point. Please do try to pay attention, there’s a good subject.
> If you mean “mandatory collectivism” then say “mandatory collectivism”.
“Collectivism” has a generally agreed upon meaning, which is that of far-left socialist movements like communism and fascism. That there is a secondary meaning is secondary to the discussion.
> Remember that social contract? You can always opt out of it. Personally, I’d love to allow people to opt out if they so desire. Of course, doing so might mean they can no longer use anything that is publicly funded, be it roads, railways, bridges, hospitals, clinics, schools, etc. No picking and choosing, either you’re in or you’re out.
Huh. So if the government decides to enslave people elsewhere on the planet and taxes *you* to run the project, you’d feel happy in opting out of paying your taxes, and would just as happily opt out of police and fire protection because, God knows, all possible functions of the government are equally valid?
> And yet you keep blaming the Democrats rather than sheeting the blame home where it belongs – the Republicans.
You’ll not see me defending the Republicans much. But the Dems are the truly scary ones.
Just because someone decries murderers doesn’t mean he’s a supporter of pickpockets.
> A party that thought it would be nicer to pour several trillion dollars into foreign wars without regard as to what it would do to your domestic economy.
What was that?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html
the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.08 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of you being utterly wrong.
> Size has nothing to do with it.
Keep telling yourself that.
“Oh, boo fricken hoo. If your pride prevents you froma skign for help, ”
Why should a worker have to beg for something that the sweat of his brow has created? Workers create wealth, therefore they are entitled to some of it back when they are thrown away by the rich piggy bosses when they are no longer needed. You don’t see the rich piggy bosses taking a cut in salary so workers stay in employment. You don’t see rich piggy bosses taking cuts in profits, now do you?
“Admin says: COMMENT DELETED
Once again, death threats and/or threats of violence are NOT PERMITTED HERE.”
Good to see you finally acted. Obviously even some things are even beyond the pale for you.
> Workers create wealth, therefore they are entitled to some of it back
They are entitled to whatever the contract they signed says they are entitled to. No more, no less.
> rich piggy bosses
Well, SOMEBODY certainly has had some elocution lessons from the local communist party..
> Obviously even some things are even beyond the pale for you.
Death threats or threats of violence are not permitted. Neither are *veilled* death threats or threats of violence. And since communism and its close cousin fascism murdered hundreds of millions, and caused death and pain wherever they went, it would thus be appropriate to consider any advocacy of fascism or communism to also be death threats.
Calling for the systematic hunt for and removal of the genetic disease called socialism is not a death threat, stupid beeatch.
ADMIN: Sigh. Calling for the deaths of *socialists* IS a death threat.
And while I agree with you that socialism is evil and belongs in the garbage pile of history along with fascism, communism, theocracy and aristocracy… you go to far. You thus got the banhammer.
>Why should a worker have to beg for something that the sweat of his brow has created? Workers create wealth, therefore they are entitled to some of it back when they are thrown away by the rich piggy bosses when they are no longer needed. You don’t see the rich piggy bosses taking a cut in salary so workers stay in employment. You don’t see rich piggy bosses taking cuts in profits, now do you?
While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t agree with the language. Workers contribute to the wealth of society, therefore society should protect and ensure their livelihood as much as possible and if necessary, provide a social welfare safety net if they need it. Workers are an asset and therefore should be treated as such, not merely thrown on the scrapheap when they aren’t needed any more. “Rich piggy bosses” do exist but they are in the minority. Employers should contribute to the social good, part of which is used to provide that social safety net if for no other reason, “but for the grace of God…” they may well need it one day themselves.
Without rich piggy bosses, there would not be enough wealth in one place to employ the workers.
> Oh, boo fricken hoo. If your pride prevents you froma skign for help, then you don’t really need help. And what’s worse about askign for people who are giving out help of their own free will using resources gladly and freely donated for that purpose, than demanding help from people who have no choice but to pay up or go to jail?
As Bearded Dragon suggested, why should someone have to beg? Charity can be at the whim of the giver. Citizens are entitled to some return on their labour. A proper social welfare safety net is an entitlement and so when asked for, cannot without good reason be refused. Charity can be. In the 19th century, the UK relied upon a system of charity for those who were unemployed or unable to work and the result was the “work house” – where people starved, lived in abject poverty and were looked down upon for their circumstance. The failure of that system and what it resulted in is why social security safety nets were developed.
> Which has been my point. Please do try to pay attention, there’s a good subject.
Funny that wasn’t the impression I received from your comments about how your government is bound by the laws it makes… Looks to me more in the form than the function of how it operates. Laws are created which limit government excess and are immediately subverted by the government which passed the laws in the first place.
So, do you support the torture of prisoners? Do you support the surveillance of citizens by your own government?
> “Collectivism” has a generally agreed upon meaning, which is that of far-left socialist movements like communism and fascism. That there is a secondary meaning is secondary to the discussion.
Fascism is not a far-left socialist movement. Not sure where or if you’ve ever received any political education but no where in the world is fascism referred to in that way.
Further, you appear to be speaking a language other than English if you believe using the unqualified term “collectivism” means anything other than “collectivism”. Perhaps its a case of you don’t consider that you’re speaking a dialect rather than mainstream English?
> Huh. So if the government decides to enslave people elsewhere on the planet and taxes *you* to run the project, you’d feel happy in opting out of paying your taxes, and would just as happily opt out of police and fire protection because, God knows, all possible functions of the government are equally valid?
Actually, isn’t that what you desire? Afterall, for you it seems all organs of government funded through taxation are anathema.
Interestingly, suburban fire services in Australia are largely funded by insurance company levies. So much for “collectivism”, hey?
> You’ll not see me defending the Republicans much. But the Dems are the truly scary ones.
I disagree. Democrats accept society as it is. Republicans refuse to.
>Just because someone decries murderers doesn’t mean he’s a supporter of pickpockets.
Really? As your criticism has been to date almost exclusively of the Democratic party, I assumed you were a Republican fan. Mmm, on second thoughts, perhaps your views are even to extreme for the Republicans. 🙂
> What was that?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html
the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.08 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of you being utterly wrong.
No, you’re assuming that direct costs are the only costs incurred in those wars. How naive of you.
> Keep telling yourself that.
I expected you to turn to sexual innuendo when I made that comment. Good to see my suspicions proved right. Appears you can’t have a mature conversation about politics.
Why is that the world’s most populous country is better organised than yours?
> Employers should contribute to the social good
They do. It’s called a “paycheck.” That’s the sum total of *anyone’s* responsibility… what they are willing to pay for what someone else is willing to offer. If I buy an hour’s labor from the neighbor kid to mow my lawn, or a gallon of milk from the store or a gallon of gasoline, my responsibility to the offerer ends when we have exchanged goods/ services and money.
> why should someone have to beg?
The alternative is to force productive people at gunpoint to turn over the fruits of their labors. Is that *really* what you prefer?
A “socail safety net” should exist. And it should be damned uncomfortable to those in it, so they get themselves out of it ASAP.
> do you support the torture of prisoners? Do you support the surveillance of citizens by your own government?
Irrelevant to the discussion, but no. Two of the reasons why I’ve no intention of moving to Britain.
> Fascism is not a far-left socialist movement.
If Communism is “far left” then Fasicsm is “a little bit less to the far left than Communism.” There are really only two differences between fascism and communism:
1) Of the 500 races of Man, fascism intentionally oppresses 499. Communism add one more to the list.
2) Communism abolishes private ownership of businesses, and puts them under the control of the government. Fascism allows private ownership of businesses, but puts them under the control of the government.
> you appear to be speaking a language other than English if you believe using the unqualified term “collectivism” means anything other than “collectivism”.
I’m sorry if you cannot tell the difference between government control of strictly limited fields, and unconstrained control of whatever it wants to. While a police department may be defined as “collectivist,” the true collectivist sees no area of human endeavor in which society as a whole should not be involved.
> suburban fire services in Australia are largely funded by insurance company levies. So much for “collectivism”, hey?
Question: if you own a home in the Aussie burbs, can you opt out of paying?
> Democrats accept society as it is.
Really? How odd.
> I expected you to turn to sexual innuendo when I made that comment.
It’s not my fault if you choose to see sexual innuendo where it does not exist.
> Why is that the world’s most populous country is better organised than yours?
Assuming that’s true, why do you assume it’s a good thing?
> The alternative is to force productive people at gunpoint to turn over the fruits of their labors. Is that *really* what you prefer?
I have seen no mention of guns. I would prefer the rule of law be used. You want to live in a modern, liberal, democratic, western society which provides a social safety net then you have to pay taxes. You don’t? Then move somewhere else. What? There is no where else? Of course there is. You might have to learn a new language, you might have to do some travelling but perhaps Japan might be more to your liking where there is no real, social safety net.
>A “socail safety net” should exist. And it should be damned uncomfortable to those in it, so they get themselves out of it ASAP.
As I’ve said before, I believe there should be incentives for recipients to remove themselves from benefits. As experience has shown, penalties tend to make them stay on benefits.
> Irrelevant to the discussion, but no. Two of the reasons why I’ve no intention of moving to Britain.
Yet, as we know, those things occur in the United States. Appears its OK when your government does it but you’re critical of other governments for doing it.
> If Communism is “far left” then Fasicsm is “a little bit less to the far left than Communism.” There are really only two differences between fascism and communism:
1) Of the 500 races of Man, fascism intentionally oppresses 499. Communism add one more to the list.
2) Communism abolishes private ownership of businesses, and puts them under the control of the government. Fascism allows private ownership of businesses, but puts them under the control of the government.
As I have demonstrated in the other discussion, the common definition of Fascism is that it is a far-right ideology. Perhaps you need to understand how the political spectrum works before producing your own definitions?
> I’m sorry if you cannot tell the difference between government control of strictly limited fields, and unconstrained control of whatever it wants to. While a police department may be defined as “collectivist,” the true collectivist sees no area of human endeavor in which society as a whole should not be involved.
Of course not. Afterall, most people aren’t misanthropes and are part of the society around them and engaged with it at every level. I’m not sure where you’ve gone so far astray compared to the rest of your society but your views are bizarre to say the least, I must say.
> Question: if you own a home in the Aussie burbs, can you opt out of paying?
Yes. Just don’t take out home insurance.
> Really? How odd.
Nope, reality. Republicans deny it. Look at the Republican stance on Gay people for example. They are second-class citizens merely because they don’t do the same things as Republicans decree they should in their bedrooms.
> Assuming that’s true, why do you assume it’s a good thing?
Because it negates your claims that the size of your nation prevents it being better organised perhaps?
“They are entitled to whatever the contract they signed says they are entitled to. No more, no less.”
They are entitled to what has been determined to be their entitled under a properly constituted workers’ collective.
“Well, SOMEBODY certainly has had some elocution lessons from the local communist party..”
No, I’ve just realised that capitalists deserve everything they get.
> They are entitled to what has been determined to be their entitled under a properly constituted workers’ collective.
In other words. communism. As I’ve said, death threats are not allowed on this blog. Where it has reared its head, communism has killed. The advocacy of communism is de facto advocacy of mass murder.