These are the implicit or explicit assumptions of this politician:
1. It is okay to pay people slave wages as long as that value is assigned by the free market.
2. If people revolt or attempt to change the wage given to them by the free market, it is okay if companies a) replace people with machines, b) move to another country with even more desperate people, c) pump millions into the political system to change the laws.
3. That helping people by instituting social safety nets is wrong, because it creates artificially high wages, which is bad for investors.
4. That unions and the minimum wage are bad, because they force corporations and companies to pay a fair wage, which is bad for investors.
Sure, he says unions and the minimum wage are bad because they "destroy jobs", but he says this as if the social safety net does not exist. It does exist, he knows it, and he is working to destroy it to lower the average wage.
The bottom line is this, folks: Before Clinton and NAFTA the unions increased the average wage up to a level that assured that everyone made livable wage, and the social system helped the jobless workers stay afloat. In the post-Clinton world people are falling through the cracks, because the welfare system no longer protects jobless workers beyond a certain time period, a political reality that Schiff applauds Clinton for creating. This, and the fact that GATT, NAFTA have allowed the corporations to go where ever they please, has allowed for this vile and concerted attack on the average wage.
Therefore, if you can't find a job in the future (or a job that pays a reasonable wage), just remember, listening to men like Schiff and Harper got you there. Nothing else. There once existed a world where workers were paid a livable wage, NOT a wage decided by the so-called "free market". There was a once a world that was fought for.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Schiff's Assumptions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
And if we take into account that Samoa has a PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) of 40% of that of the United States, and if we multiply the tuna factory wage of $3.35 an hour by .4, we get $1.34 USD PPP for the average Samoan worker per hour. And if the Samoan wage were to increase to 7 dollars an hour, the average Samoan worker would be paid about 2. 8 dollars an hour. Fuck you guys are dumb.
The Samoan economy is much, much smaller than the American economy, which means that those who control the resources have to charge more. This means that there is a reverse PPP trend happening there.
I have to re-watch the Schiff video before I provide a proper response, however, American Samoans are paid in USD. If they make 7 dollars an hours, they make 7 dollars an hour, not 2.8.
Hi, the PPP shows the American Samoans as making 40% of the PPP of America. If so, and they are paid in American dollars, then it follows that basic goods are much, much more expensive. This makes sense considering only 1/4 of the population is employed.
A little birdy told me that the average tuna worker has not been willing to work for under $5.50 an hour for over 7 years, which suggests this has more to do with class struggle than the minimum wage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LaPGIIAyk4&feature=player_embedded
"Hi, the PPP shows the American Samoans as making 40% of the PPP of America. If so, and they are paid in American dollars, then it follows that basic goods are much, much more expensive. This makes sense considering only 1/4 of the population is employed."
And the fact that they are out in the middle of nowhere and the fact that
"American Samoa, located within the geographical region of Oceania, is one of only two possessions of the United States in the Southern Hemisphere, the other being Jarvis Island. Its total land area is 76.8 square miles (199 km²) -- slightly larger than Washington, D.C. -- consisting of five rugged, volcanic islands and two coral atolls."
But don't you worry, Josh! You just blindly follow Peter!
So, by that logs, 60% of the cost of their goods in simply based on transportation of those goods to the American Samoa. Shit. They're really getting ripped off.
Yes, by that calculation. But let's say we didn't multiply the 3.35 an hour by .4. Let's say that the low wages themselves are reflective of American Samoa's low PPP. This also makes sense. Crappy, slave wages for everyone says Peter Schiff!
I still haven't had a chance to watch the video fully again to properly respond to this; i do, however find it hilarious that you think he wants to make people more poor
Yup, that's exactly what he wants to do, because he supports free market economics.
That would be like him saying you want everyone to be poor because you support socialism.
But he's not that stupid. You are.
He might have an argument if he can show that socialism leads to poverty; unfortunately, that is not the case, so he has no argument. Free markets can be shown to lead to lower wages because of competition in a labor-rich economy. This is a fact, Schiff wants American jobs to be out-sourced, so I can say that he is pro-slave wages.
"This is a fact, Schiff wants American jobs to be out-sourced, so I can say that he is pro-slave wages."
Please quote where he's ever supported the out-sourcing of american work.
"Please quote where he's ever supported the out-sourcing of american work."
Are you asserting that Peter Schiff is not in favor of "free trade" and "free trade" agreements?
You know I think I am pretty clear on where Josh's political leanings are.
I am less clear on yours Chris other than it seems to be based on the "whatever Josh says is wrong philosophy" which is no less invalid but would be interesting to know clearly if your beliefs are any deeper than just calling everyone else stupid!
Do not confuse what I just said as my support for Josh's politcal leanings as much as not having a clear picture of yours outside of in your face debate.
What exactly are your political beliefs? What label do you apply to yourself? What exisiting government, if any, would exemplify closest to what you believe. What is the roll of government in your thoughts?
I know I should be able to glean from these conversations where you sit but I am not that smart and would ask you to indulge the old man with a brief summary.
"Are you asserting that Peter Schiff is not in favor of "free trade" and "free trade" agreements?"
Correct, Peter Schiff is not in favor of "free trade agreements" because they do not represent true free trade.
"What exactly are your political beliefs? What label do you apply to yourself? What exisiting government, if any, would exemplify closest to what you believe. What is the roll of government in your thoughts?"
Chris believes if we've had 60 years of proper social policies governing our global society, we'd all be living in cotton candy land, playing with puppy dogs, and eating cake.
If you'd like him to go any deeper than that, if you've read the previous comments on this thread, you'd notice he's incapable of doing so.
As well, Chris fully believes the majority rules the minority and had no concern for individual choice as we do not choose things, we're all simply a product of trillions of actions before us. Such disrespect for the individual typically lead governments to torture, steal, and murder individuals, but that's okay because free will is a product of the Christian church and therefore does not exist even if it is staring him in the face every time he looks in the mirror. Governments do not CHOOSE to murder, they're just a result of existing, and because governments are the people, its really the people doing the murdering. See, my government killed an afghan the other day, but I'm responsible, because as a citizen of Canada, I'm part of the government and my representative is beholden to me.
Doesn't it all make sense? Every individual in the world is responsible for every bad action its government takes, which the governments don't choose to do and are simply a result of thousands of actions before hand. His philosophy excuses all bad actions taken by any individual and removes credit from any good anyone does. Why even have prisons? These criminals didn't CHOOSE to commit their crime, they're simply a result of their situation......
Idiot.
hmmmm Thank you Josh for such a clear explanation of what you believe to be what Chris beleives.
For clarity who is the "idiot". I never know with you two who is referring to who with the liberal use of name calling as a practical tool of discourse.
Having said all of that i still feel a void on the question as I would actually like to hear the words from the horses mouth, if you will.
I will break the rules you two have set for conversation/debate and will close without calling anybody anything! Shocking I know!
I sorry, me calling him an idiot is simply a result of trillions of actions before that instance; if I had free will, maybe I would've chosen to not call him an idiot.
"You know I think I am pretty clear on where Josh's political leanings are."
In the retardosphere.
"I am less clear on yours Chris other than it seems to be based on the "whatever Josh says is wrong philosophy" which is no less invalid but would be interesting to know clearly if your beliefs are any deeper than just calling everyone else stupid!"
If you can't successfully argue for a position, that position is wrong. You just don't continue to believe something even when it is indefensible. Josh continues to do this, and people who defend the indefensible should be shocked by being called stupid. I, obviously, concur with Zappa on this point.
"I know I should be able to glean from these conversations where you sit but I am not that smart and would ask you to indulge the old man with a brief summary."
The last 70 years have been immensely successful as an economic and political model. Those who are against it are anti-civlization and moving us toward revolution and its 50-50 outcome.
"Correct, Peter Schiff is not in favor of "free trade agreements" because they do not represent true free trade."
lol, no true scotsman...
Sorry, Josh, but Peter Schiff is definitely for the low wages of free trade. He is an anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-minimum wage retard that thinks that people will be better off making 2 dollar an hour. And, yes, he is for the free trade agreements, even though they might not perfectly meet his ideal.
"Chris believes if we've had 60 years of proper social policies governing our global society, we'd all be living in cotton candy land, playing with puppy dogs, and eating cake."
Not "if we've"; instead, we had 70 years of successful civilization that virtually eliminated poverty and wage-slavery, all the time allowing for healthy profits for the business owners. It is called the New Deal era. This politcal-economic template should be applied to the entire globe.
"If you'd like him to go any deeper than that, if you've read the previous comments on this thread, you'd notice he's incapable of doing so."
I don't need to go any deeper. My arguments are based on what is and what works, not based on "ideals" and what has been proven not to work. Slavery arose from the free market of brutal force. A controlled, rights-based free market is just a middle ground where the owned slave is allowed to be a wage slave. yay!
"As well, Chris fully believes the majority rules the minority"
As did the founders, but with certain checks and balances. Nothing has changed, just the goverment. When the Republicons are in power, they love the government of the majority, but when they are out of power they call for revolution. In my opinion, and this includes the libertards, the conservatives have become totalitarians opposed the constitution.
"and had no concern for individual choice as we do not choose things,"
I have concern for the individual, who exists and acts regardless of existential freedom. Please shelve the Randian non-sense.
"we're all simply a product of trillions of actions before us."
Indeed.
"Such disrespect for the individual typically lead governments to torture, steal, and murder individuals,"
INDVIDUAL AND CHOICE ARE NOT EQUAL JOSH! And even though I am denying the existence of existential freedom, freedom independant of cause-and-effect, political freedom, physical freedom, and economic freedom surely do exist.
"but that's okay because free will is a product of the Christian church and therefore does not exist even if it is staring him in the face every time he looks in the mirror."
Me looking in the mirror does not prove that freedom exists apart from cause-and-effect. It does, however, prove that I am physically free, because I can see that there are no shackles around my neck when I look in the mirror.
"Governments do not CHOOSE to murder, they're just a result of existing, and because governments are the people, its really the people doing the murdering."
That's right, they don't choose. Goverments execute people, THEY ACT, based on trillions of causes. And, yes, if the people are lazy, arm-chair retards who are not willing to storm the gates for freedom, then, yup, that's what happens. Libertards are not willing to fight for their freedom; they just want to sit on their chairs and make easily defeatable arguments.
"See, my government killed an afghan the other day, but I'm responsible, because as a citizen of Canada, I'm part of the government and my representative is beholden to me"
That's right. Responsible politics means engagement on many levels. If you don't engage, then you are acting irresponsibly. This is why my calling you a retard when you continue to believe something that has no basis in realtity is much more politiclaly responsible than Dad's silence in polite disagreement.
"Doesn't it all make sense? Every individual in the world is responsible for every bad action its government takes,"
Yup. Disengagement by a majority of the populace will always lead to oligarchy or dictatorship. The founders knew this as a fact and only gave the American Republic about 200 years before it turned into an aristocracy.
"which the governments don't choose to do and are simply a result of thousands of actions before hand."
The lack of existential choice does not mean that action, will, stops. Don't be silly.
"His philosophy excuses all bad actions taken by any individual and removes credit from any good anyone does."
Not it doesn't. Stop repeating retarded, scholastic-Christian non-sense. Since Aquinas' time, the Christians have been trying to justify the execution of individauls by the state. Why? Because Catholics believe that all people have souls. Therefore, in order to logically justify the killing of a prisoner who obviously has a soul, the men of the Church had to come up with existential freedom. You are free to choose, and if you make the wrong choice, we are justified in damning your eternal soul.
Unfortunately for the Catholics, the Christian religion was disproven when the world was proven to be more than 4 thousand year old and disproven at its inception by the fact that non-Christian culture preceded Christ by at least a couple of thousand years.
The laws and exectution, however, have existed since the beginning of the tribe. They existed in the realms of the pre-Christian kings and they WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY CHOICE. Instead, as is seen in the stories of the pagn Gods, they were always in retributions, for revenge. If you did something wrong, there was a price to pay. The ancients knew there was will power and they knew about cause-and-effect, too, but they did not beleive in free will. The "Fates" are a great example of this lack. The fates are cause-and-effect in verse.
"Why even have prisons? These criminals didn't CHOOSE to commit their crime, they're simply a result of their situation......"
You are obviously stuck in a vicious little circle of logic, created by the dominant assumption of our Christian culture, and further reinforced by your libertarian doctrine. The law is not based on criminals making choices. Criminals are not punished because they choose to do something. The laws was instituted to discourage people from acting in certain ways by publicizing penalties for acting a certain way, to giving to certain impulses. Acting, again, is not existentiall free; there is no free will; but there is will power, and those who intitially insttituted the laws back in the times of pre-Christian kings knew that the power of retribution, the threat of state punishment, was enough to discourage a majority of would-be criminals.
"I sorry, me calling him an idiot is simply a result of trillions of actions before that instance; if I had free will, maybe I would've chosen to not call him an idiot."
Maybe, but I am causing you to lose your cool, moron.
"Not "if we've"; instead, we had 70 years of successful civilization that virtually eliminated poverty and wage-slavery, all the time allowing for healthy profits for the business owners. It is called the New Deal era. This politcal-economic template should be applied to the entire globe."
Yes it has been successful for some. I suppose the several billion that live in poverty and a state of malnourishment, including many in our own country may have a different point of view.
"If you can't successfully argue for a position, that position is wrong. You just don't continue to believe something even when it is indefensible. Josh continues to do this, and people who defend the indefensible should be shocked by being called stupid."
I assume that you and you alone are the arbiter of what is "sucessfull"? I have yet to see the "success" that either of you have displayed in conclusion of your arguments. To argue ones point fervently with supporting facts and figures to my thinking does not automatically mean one has made a successful arguement. Supporting ones arguement by employing perjoratives againt the other debater strikes me as symbolic of the debaters lack of self-confidence in their own arguement. For example:"Fuck you guys are dumb."
At this stage of the debate you lost all credibility in the debate. I engage you now only because you are my Son's.
'The last 70 years have been immensely successful as an economic and political model. Those who are against it are anti-civlization and moving us toward revolution and its 50-50 outcome."
I guess this depends on where one sits inside the existing model. I will grant you that there is much good and much better then in previous generations but much wrong still exists. I suppose that if you were a white, male property owner in the early 1800's you could be excused for thinking things were "defensible".
"That's right. Responsible politics means engagement on many levels. If you don't engage, then you are acting irresponsibly. This is why my calling you a retard when you continue to believe something that has no basis in realtity is much more politiclaly responsible than Dad's silence in polite disagreement."
You calling anyone a retard is to only, once gain, diminish your ability to convey your thoughts.The use of this term shows a shocking lack of respect for a large number of the population that is mentally disabled. One might think that you may feel the use of that most perjorative of terms that dullards use to describe African- Americans as also a satisfactory way to convey your arguement!
I am confused about your reference to my silence. Like you I have expressed my opinions and from what I can discern both of you have fallen into a quagmire of set beliefs littered with an effort to debase each other. This leaves no room for ponderance and wonder. I am old enough to know that todays stridently defended positions can be found wanting with the passage of time. As you both will find out but only if you keep your mind open and imagination active.
"The last 70 years have been immensely successful as an economic and political model. Those who are against it are anti-civlization and moving us toward revolution and its 50-50 outcome."
What about the 70 years before that? I'm sure the fella in 1940 was happy he wasn't living in 1870 (well maybe he was considering he was probably at war because bleeding-heart liberal FDR antagonizes Japan into providing an excuse to go to war; not to mention he was fucked if he was Japanese and living in the US; but economically speaking probably not.)
"Sorry, Josh, but Peter Schiff is definitely for the low wages of free trade."
True free trade would push the cost of living down pushing up the value of your earnings. Nominally, I don't care if wages are "low" or "high" compared to today, just as long my standard of living would go up, and free-trade would provide that.
"A controlled, rights-based free market is just a middle ground where the owned slave is allowed to be a wage slave. yay!"
And in your dream-world, we're all 30% slave.
"As did the founders, but with certain checks and balances. Nothing has changed, just the goverment. When the Republicons are in power, they love the government of the majority, but when they are out of power they call for revolution. In my opinion, and this includes the libertards, the conservatives have become totalitarians opposed the constitution."
They feared law by majority and spoke negatively about democracy. That's why laws needed to be passed by a senate of which individuals were appointed by their respective legislatures. Doesn't really sound like a democratic institution...As well, look at the electoral college, a president can be elected without obtaining the majority of the vote.
Revolution would be in the spirit of the declaration of independence. I've read lots of libertarians who do not support certain portions of the constitution and they are allowed to. But they also understand the legal method through amending the constitution if you don't agree with it. Soo..not sure what your points was.
"The founders knew this as a fact and only gave the American Republic about 200 years before it turned into an aristocracy."
They new this as a fact which is why they restricted the power of federal government so much.
"Yes it has been successful for some."
To those it has been applied to, yes.
"I suppose the several billion that live in poverty and a state of malnourishment,"
Where the New Deal has not been applied.
"including many in our own country"
Which is entirely due to Reagan and Clinton's cut to the social safety net.
"I assume that you and you alone are the arbiter of what is "sucessfull"?"
Nope, silence on a point is the arbiter of what is successful. No response, successful point.
"I have yet to see the "success" that either of you have displayed in conclusion of your arguments. To argue ones point fervently with supporting facts and figures to my thinking does not automatically mean one has made a successful arguement."
I know, and that is what separates us. You think people have the right to obstruct conclusions.
"Supporting ones arguement by employing perjoratives againt the other debater strikes me as symbolic of the debaters lack of self-confidence in their own arguement. For example:"Fuck you guys are dumb."
Could be, or it could a sign of frustration due to denialist politics. ;)
"At this stage of the debate you lost all credibility in the debate. I engage you now only because you are my Son's."
I'm not interested in gaining "credibility".
"I guess this depends on where one sits inside the existing model. I will grant you that there is much good and much better then in previous generations but much wrong still exists. I suppose that if you were a white, male property owner in the early 1800's you could be excused for thinking things were "defensible"."
I don't understand your last sentence, but I'm pretty sure that pre-Clinton tax reforms there was no poverty. Canada was the same. It is only with "free market reforms" that poverty on the streets started to reappear. You know its true, don't lie to yourself.
"You calling anyone a retard is to only, once gain, diminish your ability to convey your thoughts.The use of this term shows a shocking lack of respect for a large number of the population that is mentally disabled."
I am using the term in its original meaning, which means "slow".
"One might think that you may feel the use of that most perjorative of terms that dullards use to describe African- Americans as also a satisfactory way to convey your arguement!"
If it really irritaes you, I can use the term "bonehead".
"I am confused about your reference to my silence. Like you I have expressed my opinions and from what I can discern both of you have fallen into a quagmire of set beliefs littered with an effort to debase each other. This leaves no room for ponderance and wonder. I am old enough to know that todays stridently defended positions can be found wanting with the passage of time. As you both will find out but only if you keep your mind open and imagination active."
I have no idea what "found wanting by the passage of time means" other than "I'm getting old and bored with the same old arguments".
That is not very helpful.
"What about the 70 years before that? I'm sure the fella in 1940 was happy he wasn't living in 1870 (well maybe he was considering he was probably at war because bleeding-heart liberal FDR antagonizes Japan into providing an excuse to go to war; not to mention he was fucked if he was Japanese and living in the US; but economically speaking probably not.)"
Allowing the NAZIS the production capabilites of all of Europe and the Japanese the production capabilities of Asia would have been the biggest mistake in history. If FDR did trick the Japanese into attacking America, to get the isolationists off their retarded asses, then he did what was right. Facism had to be stopped, and the Ron Pauls of the world were just content to sit on their merry asses and enjoy their short-term freedom.
"True free trade would push the cost of living down pushing up the value of your earnings. Nominally, I don't care if wages are "low" or "high" compared to today, just as long my standard of living would go up, and free-trade would provide that."
Cotton candy land spotted! Ignore the Chinese living on 2 dollars PPP per hour! Ignore, ignore, ignore!
"And in your dream-world, we're all 30% slave."
Me? No, I make a non-slave-wage wage.
OOOOOOOH! You mean that I am not free because I am not existentially free! Well,that is garbage, because I am politically, economically, and physically free..
"They feared law by majority and spoke negatively about democracy. That's why laws needed to be passed by a senate of which individuals were appointed by their respective legislatures. Doesn't really sound like a democratic institution...As well, look at the electoral college, a president can be elected without obtaining the majority of the vote."
And yet, the instituted a democratic system. Sounds like a contradiction to me, Josh! If they were so against "democracy", they simply would have instituted a aristocrtic system. Why didn't they? Oh yeah, that is right, not all of them cautioned agaisnt democracy..
"Revolution would be in the spirit of the declaration of independence."
Revoution because you lost an election is NOT in the spirit of the constitution. In fact, the only time when revolution is in the spirit of the constitution is when a tyrant has taken over the government.
"I've read lots of libertarians who do not support certain portions of the constitution and they are allowed to."
True.
"But they also understand the legal method through amending the constitution if you don't agree with it. Soo..not sure what your points was."
I don't disagree with that. DUH.
My point is that Republicons are whiny little hypocrites when they lose.
"They new this as a fact which is why they restricted the power of federal government so much."
Good, and those balances are stil in effect, and the Republic is still in effect. In fact, a revolution "because we lost the election" would effectively end the Republic.
"Allowing the NAZIS the production capabilites of all of Europe and the Japanese the production capabilities of Asia would have been the biggest mistake in history. If FDR did trick the Japanese into attacking America, to get the isolationists off their retarded asses, then he did what was right. Facism had to be stopped, and the Ron Pauls of the world were just content to sit on their merry asses and enjoy their short-term freedom."
Nazi Germany would have become a failed-state because they would have failed at productively organizing the production capabilities of all of Europe just like Russia failed to do it and China failed to do it. Either way, the ends do not justify the means ever; civilians died in Pearl Harbor because the White House did not provide intelligence that it had to the military in Hawaii.
"You mean that I am not free because I am not existentially free! Well,that is garbage, because I am politically, economically, and physically free.."
Only because you're a tax-evader ;)
"And yet, the instituted a democratic system.
If you read the quote you referred to, you would understand that THEY DID NOT INSTITUTE A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM ON PURPOSE.
``
Revoution because you lost an election is NOT in the spirit of the constitution. In fact, the only time when revolution is in the spirit of the constitution is when a tyrant has taken over the government.``
A revolution is always justified, because for it to occur, a sufficient amount of the populace would need to have cause to be so angry at their government and at the same time so helpless in their ability to change their government, that they are willing to risk their life to change it. Like secession, revolution is simply an extreme form of democracy. And if you think America is heading for a revolution simply because the repubs lost an election...the teabaggers hardly even like elections, let alone McCain. The teabaggers aren`t the only ones stirring up revolutionary ideas, there`s a secessionist movement in Vermont right now unrelated that`s garnering 12-13% support.
"Nazi Germany would have become a failed-state because they would have failed at productively organizing the production capabilities of all of Europe just like Russia failed to do it and China failed to do it."
Russia had all the production capabilities of Europe? WHAT?
Russia and China were communist regimes, whereas NAZIS Germany was a rightwing facist regime with a PROVEN track record of producing military goods at a rapid pace.
"Either way, the ends do not justify the means ever; civilians died in Pearl Harbor because the White House did not provide intelligence that it had to the military in Hawaii."
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it was the right choice. A combined Nazis Europe and Japanese Asia would have led to the demise of the USA and Canada in the long-run.
"Only because you're a tax-evader ;)"
I pay my taxes here.
"If you read the quote you referred to, you would understand that THEY DID NOT INSTITUTE A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM ON PURPOSE."
Yes, yes they did. They instituted a democratic system with checks and balances. Jeesh..
"A revolution is always justified,"
????
"because for it to occur, a sufficient amount of the populace would need to have cause to be so angry at their government and at the same time so helpless in their ability to change their government, that they are willing to risk their life to change it."
Fox News spun garbage. Did you know that they cut away from coverage of Obama's lunch with the Republicans? Fox news is manufacturing anger without being properly critiqued.
"Like secession, revolution is simply an extreme form of democracy. And if you think America is heading for a revolution simply because the repubs lost an election...the teabaggers hardly even like elections, let alone McCain. The teabaggers aren`t the only ones stirring up revolutionary ideas, there`s a secessionist movement in Vermont right now unrelated that`s garnering 12-13% support."
Again, the only revolution in the spirit of the constitution is that revolution against a tyrant. All other revolutions are crybaby tears.
``Russia and China were communist regimes, whereas NAZIS Germany was a rightwing facist regime with a PROVEN track record of producing military goods at a rapid pace.``
The only difference is the way those in power justify their power to the people. Otherwise there is no difference: a strong central government attempting to organize an entire society. They would have failed, the people would have turned against those in power. It would not have lasted, and any accusation that it would have and we would all be Nazi`s today if the US had not gone to war in 1942 is ignorant.
``A combined Nazis Europe and Japanese Asia would have led to the demise of the USA and Canada in the long-run. ``
Ignorant assumptions.
``I pay my taxes here. ``
On every penny of your income?
``Did you know that they cut away from coverage of Obama's lunch with the Republicans?``
You know, I`d rather you not turn me into a defender of Fox, but there you go, criticizing Fox without talking about MSNBC and CNN. Did you know when Repug Brown won the senate race neither MSNBC nor CNN aired his acceptance speach and only aired Coakley`s loser speech? Did you know Fox aired both? Did you know Fox aired 95% of Obama`s lunch with the Repugs and only cut out at the very end for previously scheduled programming?
WHAT IS YOUR POINT? I ALREADY KNOW ABOUT PROPAGANDA, I`M NOT 10.
Propaganda will not cause revolution. Fox News doesn`t want revolution. Revolution will only occur when people are helpless and angry at their government. People are getting helpless; too many people out of work; the longer they stay that way, the more pissed off they`re gonna get.
``Again, the only revolution in the spirit of the constitution is that revolution against a tyrant. All other revolutions are crybaby tears.``
As time passes on, new realities are born. Even democratic governments can be tyrannical to the point of causing a revolution. Democracy doesn`t claim to do what we`re taught it does; it falls far short. Law by the majority will not work in the long run, and whether you or I will live to see it I`m not sure, but democracy will someday be looked down upon as an ignorant, unjust, and violent form of government.
"The only difference is the way those in power justify their power to the people. Otherwise there is no difference: a strong central government attempting to organize an entire society. They would have failed, the people would have turned against those in power. It would not have lasted, and any accusation that it would have and we would all be Nazi`s today if the US had not gone to war in 1942 is ignorant."
Way to reduce trillions of causes into one cause, bonehead! The only difference is NOT the way they justified their power, but how they came to power. The Germans, who were fascists (not authoritarians), elected Hitler to power. The Chinese peasants fought a civil war against the Chinese Republicans. So, no, in the Chinese case there was no "justification of power". The peasants, in great numbers, fought a revolution to put the communists in power. They knew what they were justifying. Hitler, in complete opposition, liquidated the Weimar constitution, hence extinguishing the democratic possibility of the people voting him out of power. You see, very different.
"Otherwise there is no difference: a strong central government attempting to organize an entire society. They would have failed, the people would have turned against those in power. "
I guess that is why Soviet Russia lasted only 70s years and Hitler Germany had to be invaded and destroyed door-to-door. WHAT A HORRIBLY STUPID ARGUMENT YOU JUST MADE, JOSH.. If Hitler Germany had had time to rebuild on a consolidated Europe that they controlled, they would not have just suddenly disintegrated. My god you are ignorant about history.
"Ignorant assumptions."
Maoist China: 40 years.
Soviet Russia: 70 years.
Fundamentalist Iran: 31 years.
Saddam's regime: 24 years.
I could go on and on and on, but it won't fucking matter, because you, sir, are lying to yourself..
"On every penny of your income?"
On my main income, yes. Going to be paying taxes on about 14 million Won pretty soon. It is going to suck.
"You know, I`d rather you not turn me into a defender of Fox"
You already are. You are the left most expression of the Republican party.
You are also either ignorant or lying. Fox did not cut out to air scheduled programming. They cut out because Obama was beating the shit out of the Republicans and Ron Lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJorq5mBVs
Also, please stop comparing apples to orange. Obama is the president of the entire nation. Brown is a senator from ONE state. Fox cut out because Obama crushed them. Period. End, stop lying to yourself.
"Propaganda will not cause revolution. Fox News doesn`t want revolution. Revolution will only occur when people are helpless and angry at their government. People are getting helpless; too many people out of work; the longer they stay that way, the more pissed off they`re gonna get."
And this is why we need a strong communist party. They are not angry because of "the government"; they are angry because they don't have jobs. The only party that can solve that problem is a far left party dedicated to people, not profits. 17% unemployment and you are still whoring for the Republicans? Shame...
"As time passes on, new realities are born. Even democratic governments can be tyrannical to the point of causing a revolution."
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! The presidency is replaced every four years and Congress every two! Your stupid thoughts make no sense..
"Democracy doesn`t claim to do what we`re taught it does; it falls far short. Law by the majority will not work in the long run, and whether you or I will live to see it I`m not sure, but democracy will someday be looked down upon as an ignorant, unjust, and violent form of government."
And replaced with what, Josh? I would love to hear this answer. What kind of government will magically combine all the different economic interests without being democratic or authoritarian? Hmmm, answer..
"I guess that is why Soviet Russia lasted only 70s years"
Over the expanse of human history the USSR is a failed attempt of communism, 70 years is nothing. To the individuals that suffer through it, it probably seemed like an eternity.
"Hitler Germany had to be invaded and destroyed door-to-door"
Why did the German population support going to war in the first place? Was the German economy thriving? War is the health of the state. We could have waited them out, just like we waited Russia out. If the US congress felt it was their responsibility to go into Germany to stop the genocide, then they should have done it, and they should have done it while protecting Pearl Harbor.
"Maoist China: 40 years.
Soviet Russia: 70 years.
Fundamentalist Iran: 31 years.
Saddam's regime: 24 years."
Iran is only fundamentalist because of the CIA, and Saddam existed the majority of that time with the assistance of the US government. Soviet Russia and Maoist China failed on their own just like any similarly formed state will.
"On my main income, yes. Going to be paying taxes on about 14 million Won pretty soon. It is going to suck."
Aw, you're just paying for those amazing services the Korean government provides you. Besides, since you're economically free, if you don't want to pay those taxes, THEN DON'T.
"Also, please stop comparing apples to orange. Obama is the president of the entire nation. Brown is a senator from ONE state. Fox cut out because Obama crushed them. Period. End, stop lying to yourself."
Regardless, you pick and choose the biased news organizations you criticize. Brown won an extremely significant election which made headlines even here in Canada; playing the speach of Brown's opponent and not Brown? Shame on CNN and MSNBC. I'm not a supporter of the guy, but omitting his speech for the loser is just as wrong as cutting off Obama's speech (after airing the previous 95% of it).
"And this is why we need a strong communist party."
Yes, because communists have a fantastic record of economic prosperity.
"They are not angry because of "the government"; they are angry because they don't have jobs. The only party that can solve that problem is a far left party dedicated to people, not profits."
I keep forgetting there was no job growth before 1930.
"WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! The presidency is replaced every four years and Congress every two! Your stupid thoughts make no sense.."
You're blind to the realities.
The two party system in the US ensures that the party leaders and those that control them dictate the policies that matter. Obama acts as if its a big deal to eliminate don't ask don't tell, but fights 3 wars at once with hardly a peep of opposition.
Elections are almost meaningless. Rand Paul is riding high in the polls for the open Kentucky Senate seat, but I would still be surprised if he makes it into the good ol' boys club.
"And replaced with what, Josh? I would love to hear this answer. What kind of government will magically combine all the different economic interests without being democratic or authoritarian? Hmmm, answer.."
It will probably be some form of the republic founders had envisioned when they wrote the constitution; the US improved upon Rome, and there will be a nation which will improve upon the US.
These other social democracies we see in Europe will lead to an authoritarian communist regime that is already showing its eyes via the EU.
"Over the expanse of human history the USSR is a failed attempt of communism, 70 years is nothing. To the individuals that suffer through it, it probably seemed like an eternity."
I'm glad you failed to respond to my point that all the authoritarian regimes in recent history last long periods of times. That means that you have conceded the point. Thank you!
"Why did the German population support going to war in the first place? Was the German economy thriving? War is the health of the state. We could have waited them out, just like we waited Russia out. If the US congress felt it was their responsibility to go into Germany to stop the genocide, then they should have done it, and they should have done it while protecting Pearl Harbor."
Active militaries do not need a healthy economy when the productive forces are controlled by one central authority and a majority of the productive people are behind its message. Communism failed because the majority was not behind the message. The majority of Germans, however, were behind the message. I see no reason, therefore, to believe that they would have been interested in stopping if they had gained control of all of Europe.
"Aw, you're just paying for those amazing services the Korean government provides you. Besides, since you're economically free, if you don't want to pay those taxes, THEN DON'T."
Why would I disagee with taxes that pave my roads and get rid of the garbage? I'm not interested in living in an impoverished, disordered, dirty modern version of the Wild West.
"Regardless, you pick and choose the biased news organizations you criticize. Brown won an extremely significant election which made headlines even here in Canada;"
Brown is a senator of one state; Obama is the president of the entire nation. Fox News is a national news show. Therefore, they should have kept broadcasting it. If the main network in Mass had stopped airing Brown's acceptance speech, I would express similar outrage.
"The two party system in the US ensures that the party leaders and those that control them dictate the policies that matter. Obama acts as if its a big deal to eliminate don't ask don't tell, but fights 3 wars at once with hardly a peep of opposition."
I wonder what happened to all the left-wing anti-war protesters? Oh yeah, they stopped because they didn't to be associated with immoral morons like Ron Paul.
"It will probably be some form of the republic founders had envisioned when they wrote the constitution; the US improved upon Rome, and there will be a nation which will improve upon the US."
A republic where only white men with land can vote? I don't think so.
"These other social democracies we see in Europe will lead to an authoritarian communist regime that is already showing its eyes via the EU."
Even though they are moving right and have a solid economy? I don't think you know much about Europe!
"I'm glad you failed to respond to my point that all the authoritarian regimes in recent history last long periods of times. That means that you have conceded the point. Thank you!"
I'm glad you failed to respond to my point that central governments that attempt to organize an entire society fail.
"The majority of Germans, however, were behind the message. I see no reason, therefore, to believe that they would have been interested in stopping if they had gained control of all of Europe."
Pffft. Because the people would have become more poor. The populace would have grown disgruntled. Even if they came close to obtaining control of all of Europe, it would not have lasted.
"Why would I disagee with taxes that pave my roads and get rid of the garbage? I'm not interested in living in an impoverished, disordered, dirty modern version of the Wild West."
You're the one that says its going to suck. If its going to suck, and you claim to be economically free, than don't pay.
"Brown is a senator of one state; Obama is the president of the entire nation."
Brown won an election that occurs every 6 years to replace one of the longest sitting liberal senators in the country. His election essentially ended health care reform (if the MSM is to be believed). His election, and his speech is significantly more important than 1 speech given by a president that makes too many speeches. And if Brown's election wasn't that important, why did CNN and MSNBC air the speech of the liberal loser? You attacked the biased right, and leave the biased left alone.
"I wonder what happened to all the left-wing anti-war protesters? Oh yeah, they stopped because they didn't to be associated with immoral morons like Ron Paul."
Giving Paul a little bit too much credit I think. I problem is that the anti-war movement was never anti-war, they were anti-Bush. They might think war is bad, but they could use their hatred of Bush to fuel their passion. Too many on the left are still in awe of Obama...they're not going to protest Obama, and therefore they're not going to protest war. Its shit like this that is helping to fuel the anti-establishment movement that the tea-party is. More and more people are recognizing there is no difference between Obama and Bush, and if both sides of the government offer no solution, where do you turn?
"A republic where only white men with land can vote? I don't think so."
You missed the part where I said it would improve upon the founders, right?
"Even though they are moving right and have a solid economy?"
Europe has a solid economy? Do you read the news?
I don't care which direction you claim their moving, there's only one direction I see them moving, and that is some retarded mixture of fascism, communism, socialism and authoritarianism.
"I'm glad you failed to respond to my point that central governments that attempt to organize an entire society fail."
And I'm glad you responded to the first issue we were discussing with a change of topic. When someone is in an argument, and they change the topic, they have conceded the point.
But let me respond to your unrelated point in response to the point you have conceded:
No, sorry, you are wrong, a majority of the governments in history have been centralized. Most of them have lasted many hundreds or even thousands of years (Catholic Church). Your point is therefore unfounded and should be dismissed as nonsense.
"Pffft. Because the people would have become more poor. The populace would have grown disgruntled. Even if they came close to obtaining control of all of Europe, it would not have lasted."
The spoils of war and slaves would have kept them going long enough to rebuild for an attack on America; and, yes, they were going to have slaves. That is why the French resistance was being lead by those who believed in freedom.
"You're the one that says its going to suck. If its going to suck, and you claim to be economically free, than don't pay."
Because without a government you would have thieves at your doorstep.
"Brown won an election that occurs every 6 years to replace one of the longest sitting liberal senators in the country. His election essentially ended health care reform (if the MSM is to be believed)."
No, health care reform ended when the liberals were paid off by the health insurance companies. The bill in the senate is a big ol present for those companies.
If the democrats wanted, they could pass any legislation with 55 votes. Why don't they do it? Because they really don't believe in health care reform.
"His election, and his speech is significantly more important than 1 speech given by a president that makes too many speeches. And if Brown's election wasn't that important, why did CNN and MSNBC air the speech of the liberal loser? You attacked the biased right, and leave the biased left alone."
No, sorry, you don't know if his being elected IS important; you merely think that IT MIGHT be important.
"You attacked the biased right, and leave the biased left alone."
Obama is not left, and nationalized speeches by any president should be covered in their entirety by NATIONAL news agencies. It is fact. Get over it.
"You missed the part where I said it would improve upon the founders, right?"
I'm waiting for your suggestions, Josh; otherwise, you are just dreaming.
"Europe has a solid economy? Do you read the news?"
Yes, they have more jobs and a better currency value. The number of European jobs moved to China is much less than the number of jobs in America. It is a fact.
"I don't care which direction you claim their moving, there's only one direction I see them moving, and that is some retarded mixture of fascism, communism, socialism and authoritarianism."
You are another person who has not learnt a thing from Stalinist Russia.
"even thousands of years (Catholic Church)"
When did the government of the Catholic church begin and end?
"Most of them have lasted many hundreds"
Please advise of a government which controlled every aspect of life and lasted for hundreds of years.
"The spoils of war and slaves would have kept them going long enough to rebuild for an attack on America; and, yes, they were going to have slaves. That is why the French resistance was being lead by those who believed in freedom."
You put too much weight in the ability of spoils of war and slaves to appease the people. I maintain they would not have lasted. We can go back and forth on this, but neither of us can say definitively.
"Because without a government you would have thieves at your doorstep."
The government are the thieves at your doorstep.
"No, health care reform ended when the liberals were paid off by the health insurance companies. The bill in the senate is a big ol present for those companies."
Maybe so, but Brown's election gave them a scapegoat. And it was important, it was headline news EVERYWHERE. Even on the channels that objectively decided to omit his speech and play the speech of the loser.
Are you really arguing CNN and MSNBC are not biased?
You've watched Keith Olbermann right?
"Obama is not left, and nationalized speeches by any president should be covered in their entirety by NATIONAL news agencies. It is fact. Get over it."
Not if they choose to not broadcast the propagandistic crap that poors out of his mouth. If they choose not to air, then they shouldn't air it. The president shouldn't have a pedestal to broadcast his message across national news channels just because he wants to, and no organization should be guilted into broadcasting his speech. Before President Wilson, the president didn't even address the congress for a State of the Union. It was a letter that was sent to them.
"I'm waiting for your suggestions, Josh; otherwise, you are just dreaming. "
That general welfare clause can take a hike. And the interstate commerce clause needs to be better worded to fit the language of our time.
"Yes, they have more jobs and a better currency value. The number of European jobs moved to China is much less than the number of jobs in America. It is a fact."
It's also a fact a number of Euro countries are on the verge of bankruptcy. The Euro is in a race with the dollar to the bottom.
"You are another person who has not learnt a thing from Stalinist Russia."
MmmmMMMmMMMmk...
Post a Comment