Romney's The Man
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I was unaware of those stories. Truly gross.
However, it is important to remember that Sao Paulo is a city of 20+ million. I still think your chances of being kidnapped are pretty low if you stay in the right areas.
You will probably fly into Sao Paulo. But I personally wouldn't stay there. You could find work one hour south near the beach and I think you'd be much safer.
If getting kidnappes is your concern then Brazil should not be your concern. Phoenix is...
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
I have no idea what the average kidnap rate is for major foreign cities, but yeah, I have heard a lot about kidnapping in Brazil.
You say socialist like it's a bad thing. Does the common man think socialism = communism?
Is Obama turning American in China? Old USSR?
We'll never be like that, but are all their ideas wrong?
Here in Germany they are taxed more, but they have universal health care. I haven't found
one German that would give this up. I'm sure they are out there, but I ask my co-workers, and
friends questions about the german system. It's been described to me as "social capitalist". Higher taxes, but
everyone is covered. There are strong social systems in place to help people. "Kinder geld" is a popular one here
to help needy families.
When people state "Obama is a socialist" are they trying to say he is a communist? He wants to control everything?
Seems like people are fogetting liberalism wants to put more rights in your hands. Pro-choice, drugs, sexual, etc.
Universal Health Care does not = communism.
Is Obama turning American in China? Old USSR?
We'll never be like that, but are all their ideas wrong?
Here in Germany they are taxed more, but they have universal health care. I haven't found
one German that would give this up. I'm sure they are out there, but I ask my co-workers, and
friends questions about the german system. It's been described to me as "social capitalist". Higher taxes, but
everyone is covered. There are strong social systems in place to help people. "Kinder geld" is a popular one here
to help needy families.
When people state "Obama is a socialist" are they trying to say he is a communist? He wants to control everything?
Seems like people are fogetting liberalism wants to put more rights in your hands. Pro-choice, drugs, sexual, etc.
Universal Health Care does not = communism.
The kernel concept in positing some other countries as a place of refuge from the US "corrupt politics" is deeply flawed. The US is the only nation with substantial human rights. Everywhere else, your rights relate to your financial means and status in some way. The problem here is not our constitution or basic culture, but our drift away from what freedom/liberty we once enjoyed, for whatever reasons. Everywhere else, it would be an uphill battle to get even a few people to start talking like the ordinary citizen should have inviolable human rights. They know they have none, and don't dare "talk crazy" like that.
Here in Utah, there are still folks who will say our Constitution was divinely inspired, and that our rights come from God, and some like me who will say whether there is a God or not, human beings have inate and purely natural rights, and that any government trampling those rights should not be respected or supported, and that folks of any party who don't respect your rights should not get your vote.
And that is the fundamental reason no one should vote for Romney, who supports the HSA and Patriot Act, and supports sending our military people abroad in service of vague United Nation objectives of securing "compliance" from other natiions, in complete disregard if not outright hostility to basic human rights people all over the world should have.
The one "liberal" political organization I have joined is Amnesty International. I know personally of many ordinary folks who have in various places been thrown into hell-hole slammers for no reason except the petty personal pique of some local hustler operating for his own personal politcal gain. If we don not take a stand on principle for human rights, and use any possible influence we can have in support of justice, there simply will be no justice. Taking down the constitutional guarantees of our human rights for any reason just opens the door to wholesale abuse by people in positions of power, and cuts the legs off any lawyer trying to get justice for you personally.
Here in Utah, there are still folks who will say our Constitution was divinely inspired, and that our rights come from God, and some like me who will say whether there is a God or not, human beings have inate and purely natural rights, and that any government trampling those rights should not be respected or supported, and that folks of any party who don't respect your rights should not get your vote.
And that is the fundamental reason no one should vote for Romney, who supports the HSA and Patriot Act, and supports sending our military people abroad in service of vague United Nation objectives of securing "compliance" from other natiions, in complete disregard if not outright hostility to basic human rights people all over the world should have.
The one "liberal" political organization I have joined is Amnesty International. I know personally of many ordinary folks who have in various places been thrown into hell-hole slammers for no reason except the petty personal pique of some local hustler operating for his own personal politcal gain. If we don not take a stand on principle for human rights, and use any possible influence we can have in support of justice, there simply will be no justice. Taking down the constitutional guarantees of our human rights for any reason just opens the door to wholesale abuse by people in positions of power, and cuts the legs off any lawyer trying to get justice for you personally.
Way to make everything about you and your vast intellect, hack.
BluesRocker
Banned
How is it that the people in either party whether it be Democrat or Republican can't see the utter ridiculousness of the clams made be each side? Both have this extreme view of one another, and neither find that kind of strange, or odd that their opinions would be so different. They both just think the other is evil or stupid
I would say Obama is closer to center than left. Doesn't he seem to try and appease both sides?
I really I can't tell much of a difference between either side anyways. Of course they both sound a lot different but what they do seems a lot a like.
I find myself somewhere in the middle or more like a half breed.
I'm against abortion
I'm for national health care. I don't really see anything good coming from health care for profit. And it's the humane thing to do.
I'm for small goverment and low taxes. Infact, why can't we just do a flat tax? Im tired of only some pay taxes and some don't.
I don't like welfare for the rich or the poor, but I do think we need social security.
I think we should spend even more on education and improve it. Extend the public education system through college
Im for the free market but with regulations.
just to name a few
The point is that our country is a mix between both sides. Which is good I guess because it creates balance. I have always assumed that it is nature's way of creating a natural balance so that people would have to come to agreement that ends somewhere in the middle. Wouldn't it be easier though just to be a RATIONAL person and be able to work out something for both sides that is fair in the beginning and avoid the BS? And most people are closer to the middle whether they know it or not. Most people share similar values and if they don't then they usually respect their neighboor's values as long as it doesn't bother them. It's the faces and the leaders of each side that gets everyone all worked up over stuff. At times I feel like Im watching a bunch of little kids in adult bodies arguing over dumb shizz. It's embarrassing really to watch a bunch of so called grown ups fight like little babies. I just smh and move on.
I would say Obama is closer to center than left. Doesn't he seem to try and appease both sides?
I really I can't tell much of a difference between either side anyways. Of course they both sound a lot different but what they do seems a lot a like.
I find myself somewhere in the middle or more like a half breed.
I'm against abortion
I'm for national health care. I don't really see anything good coming from health care for profit. And it's the humane thing to do.
I'm for small goverment and low taxes. Infact, why can't we just do a flat tax? Im tired of only some pay taxes and some don't.
I don't like welfare for the rich or the poor, but I do think we need social security.
I think we should spend even more on education and improve it. Extend the public education system through college
Im for the free market but with regulations.
just to name a few
The point is that our country is a mix between both sides. Which is good I guess because it creates balance. I have always assumed that it is nature's way of creating a natural balance so that people would have to come to agreement that ends somewhere in the middle. Wouldn't it be easier though just to be a RATIONAL person and be able to work out something for both sides that is fair in the beginning and avoid the BS? And most people are closer to the middle whether they know it or not. Most people share similar values and if they don't then they usually respect their neighboor's values as long as it doesn't bother them. It's the faces and the leaders of each side that gets everyone all worked up over stuff. At times I feel like Im watching a bunch of little kids in adult bodies arguing over dumb shizz. It's embarrassing really to watch a bunch of so called grown ups fight like little babies. I just smh and move on.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I think the counter argument that many Americans would say is...
#1 The Constitution created over 200 years ago needs to stand for something. The Founding Fathers didn't believe that the Federal Government should have provided Universal Health Care (then again, how could they have foreseen 200 years into the future?) so therefore we shouldn't either.
#2 Where does it all end? Eventually, you Germans as well, will feel the weight of all these social programs and handouts. Eventually, Socialism, though brilliantly and charitably portrayed, will eventually come crashing in on itself. Future generations will demand more programs and more benefits thus creating greater financial demands which will ultimately lead to debt.
#3 Having the government provide something that churches/charities try to do will "take away" or "discourse" private charity and donations.
Those are the arguments I have heard and what I would guess many Germans, likeyou, would receive from most conservative minded Americans.
I love the bolded part. Especially when they make the same kind of claims (changing key words like religious bigot for racist, socialist for neocon).
To many stances for only two parties to encompass everything.
For me personally I am a conservative leaning idependent but I have stances that put me at odds with "conservatives". For example legalizing marijuana, pro-gay marriage and amnesty for illegals that are already here and have established roots and are not out breaking laws (aside from being here).
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
The problem with #2 above is that Germany is not socialist, it's more accurately described as 'corporatist.' Corporatism is based on social partnership between capital and labour interest groups as well as between the market economy and state regulation that is considered a compromise to regulate conflict between capital and labour by mandating them to engage in mutual consultations based that are mediated by the government. (Citing God of Wikipedia cause I'm too lazy to get a better definition, but you get the drift.) The state owns only about 2.9% of industrial production (if my numbers are correct) compared to about 2.3% in the US. Germany is not socialist and neither are other W. European countries, all have mixed economies, though some have greater state ownership of means of production than others. The myth W Europe is socialist is one of those inaccurate bits of convention wisdom that have gained prominence on the right.
Excellent post. The problem is the mixing is no longer happening to get things done.
Liberals want to tax the rich more but stop conservatives from charging them more for medicare.
Conservatives want to lower the taxes on the rich but refuse to take away the housing tax deduction from the rich.
Conservatives want to balance the budget but refuse to raise gasoline taxes with inflation at minimum (more cars + higher mpg = need for higher tax anyway) to pay for highway spending.
Liberals want a safety net to protect those who outlive their retirement savings but refuse to transform social security into a stable welfare system which actually protects the most vulnerable among us.
Conservatives want government to provide a medium of exchange but refuse to regulate banking which is an extension of that. Liberals claim to elect anti-Wall Street warriors but in reality elect *** wipes who subsidize them every chance they get in the name of helping the poor.
Conservatives and liberals both want to support innovation, science, and market based approaches, but both refuse to tax oil enough to create a market where all alternative energy subsidies are unnecessary.
These two clash.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
holy ****. I didn't see this the first time through... (read it first when Franklin responded).
This is one of the worst cases of reasoning I've ever read.
I love it when a "liberal" person gets to be right because he's some kind of technocrat. To any radical worth his salt, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
And by "right" I meant "correct". But you can take it to mean "right" as in "not left".... by a priori definition, of course.
BluesRocker
Banned
No, see you have taken it all out of context and you are looking at it through 1 of 2 pairs of goggles.
Small government and low taxes can coexist with national healtch care. Bloated and wasted spending are coming from other places that could be trimmed. And a fixed tax sytem would also bring in more money. There are a lot of people and companies working the system and not paying crap. While a few of us are subsidizing the rest. The government needs to be small, but only as small as it can be, and health care should be a priority. When it comes to the physical well being of your people, shouldn't that be priority number one. Especially if you go around selling yourself as the most humane country in the world, and running around playing superman and saving everybody. And especially since you need your people healthy and capable.
I always find it hilarious that some people run around cursing socialism but yet they are hopelessly addicted to it themselves.
If you don't like socialism then go move to somewhere far away form civilization. Because you are in it right now.
All the streets, cops, fire fighters, armies, highways, schools, ect, that you depend on are all forms of socialism.
I think it's pretty obvious that the one missing from that group is healthcare. Can you imagine trying to run privatized
fire fighting or cops? What, your house is on fire but you gotta give proof of insurance or run a credit app before the fire is
put out?
Give me a break!
All the important things in life should be protected by the government. And all the other non sense should be fair game.
Example: tv's are free market all day except monopolie laws, have fun people play your game of trying to get rich.
Example: Poor old lady just got hit by a car and that is somebody's grandma, sister, mother, and daughter, who cares how much money she has, somebody help her if you have a heart.
Here is an example of someone in total contradiction with themself.
A far right wing conservative is staunchly against socialized health care. He sees a car wreck and pulls over to help. He jumps out is car goes as quickly as he can to help the person in need because they know its' the right thing to do and they do it instinctively.
BluesRocker
Banned
I agree, less is getting done
It seems as though people are growing divided, and they are. I think in times like these when the country's well being is being threatened you get people taking harder stances on things, and casting blame around more. It's kind of a political war of words. Both beilieve that all the problems stem from the others philosophy. So naturally each side pushes their views a little harder.
There is a lot of bad blood and trust that has been washed away as well, but in the end a solution will be found. I would just be a lot happier if they would pull their heads out of their asses, act like adults, and work on a reasonable solution. Instead of continuing on their never ending quest dominate the world with their views, and wasting all this time. Because in the end, neither will completely win and the result will just end up being a compromise anyways.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Ok, let's look at this.
Socialism, by definition, means state ownership of the means of production and/or an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually. A socialist is someone who believes in or adheres to socialism. Obama does not believe in communal or state ownership of the means of production nor of property. He is, therefore, by definition not a socialist.
True or false? Show me where this argument is wrong.
The poster to whom I was replying said that this was my opinion, but as I've shown, it's not my opinion, it's true by definition. My example of calling Romney a Nazi demonstrates this point by highlighting a similar example that I am confident the original poster would agree with, even if he were reluctant to concede the argument applied to Obama. Romney is clearly not a Nazi if one understand how a Nazi is defined.
Ok, please show me how this is poor reasoning.
Second, I argued that those who call Obama a socialist are overwhelmingly drawn from the more extreme, ideological wing of the Republican party, who strongly tend as well to get their information from right wing sources.
Actually, I may be wrong here, large swaths of Republicans appear to think Obama is a socialist, not necessarily just the fringe (see for example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html). But even if this assumption was wrong, my conclusions followed logically from my premise, and it doesn't negate the broader point that people who think Obama is a socialist come predominantly from the right.
The rest of the post I concede was crap, I shouldn't have personalized it toward someone who didn't deserve it.
But as I said, I'm curious. Please do point out to me just where this is one of the worst cases of reasoning you've ever seen. Surely you have some specific standards, other than you just didn't like the style or the conclusions. So state your standards and show how you apply them. You seem to portray yourself as a great champion of reasoning skill, so please teach me.
So, I get to be right because I'm some kind of technocrat? What the hell does that mean? A really brilliant piece of insight. And this is a trait common to Liberals? Of course it is, everyone knows this. Liberals are all like this. This isn't at all some kind of pull it out your backside generalization. Yes, this is one example of pretty damned good reasoning. I see why you are so cocky, the power of your reasoning skills is just overwhelming.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'll concede that your reasoning is good according of the standards laid down by Plato (not because I want to justify its goodness or badness, but because I just want to move on to something (anything) else)..... oh many thousands of years ago.... Yes, please fix everything in the freeze-mold of a static conception. Like a Priest telling me what is and what will always be. Socialism! Nazism! Then, because it is apparently lots of fun for you, compare and contrast these freeze molds. And then, please use your results as weapons against those who disagree with you.
When you get tired of this, there is a method of philosophizing that is both rigorous and much more compassionate. (Hint: its principles are based on the fact that nothing exists in a static way; everything moves. It also places the power of your reason in its appropriate place, i.e. as small and limited).
BTW, I don't believe Obama is a socialist or a communist. Despite his drumroll for change, he is a neoliberal ****tard, or so it seems.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
That's precisely one of the primary 'problems' with politic, economic, etc. discourse, etc. is that people treat systems as static and not dynamic. People posit straight lines of cause and effect (often based on faulty assumptions) and ignore that change inevitably sets off a chain of events that are both predictable and unpredictable. There's very little willingness to concede that complex systems are, well, complex and one cannot simply manipulate complex systems as easily as people think. Economic and political systems are like living organisms, introduce change in them, and they find new ways to adapt and survive. This is, I think, one of the greatest dangers of ideology--it implies a rigid static state of affairs that always conform to an overly simplistic set of rules and relationships.
I get what you're saying. My work involves managing and monitoring complex systemic change, so you're saying nothing new. On a discussion board like this, however, it's difficult to talk in such complex terms. I'm interested in how your propose to do it. People don't think that way, and they get annoyed at people who do. I try to use some careful logical reasoning, with mixed success I concede, and I get excoriated for it (by God, I used the word 'empirical'--how pretentious!). Do you really think that engaging in moral philosophy on this board, or any political discussion board, is a winning approach? That's not how most people approach politics. In any case, I also get that it's a matter of style and I have mine, you have yours, and some like em, some don't.
Yep, neoliberal to be sure, for the most part. Obama's a mixed bag. I'll vote for him for no other reason than to keep the extremists on the right from seizing even more power, which is what will happen I think if Romney is elected. But I'd prefer to have a better reason.