What's crazier

[phoenyx]

The reason it is so fucking insane is because we as a society are so accepting of it, even through it is more insane then the other 4 choices. We give up logic, rationality and hate on science because of it, why? Because we're all brainwashed to believe some 2,000 year old book! Would we do the same to someone screaming about space aliens visiting his room at night or someone that came back from a hiking trip that says he seen big foot? Fuck no. We wouldn't cut science because of these two individuals and we wouldn't give up our rationality. We only accept the holy bible for the same reason as 100 bucks may get the mob after you, but 1 trillion bucks gets you bailed out by the government.

Don't think people 'cut science' for people's other beliefs, either. People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and the fact that you're not okay with other people accepting it only goes to show how intolerant Democrats are of opinions and beliefs that conflict with their own.

I take it you are a conservative ;-)? Surely you aren't a fan of Trump? I'm not a fan of Hillary, but Bernie, he was something else in my view. Now that he lost, if I were American, I think I'd be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party).

I am a Conservative, yes. I dislike both Hillary and Trump. I just dislike Hillary even more than I dislike Trump. On the other hand, if Bernie Sanders became President, I'd ask my parents to drop me off in another country. I don't like the idea of the US becoming the Soviet States of America.

I sincerely believe you are unfairly maligning Bernie. Democratic Socialism is nothing like Communism. The Huffington Post did an article about this a few months back...
History Lesson: Bernie Sanders is no 'Communist,' and 'Democratic Socialists' are as American as Apple Pie.

On another note, do you like manga/anime? Your icon suggests you may...

It doesn't matter what brand is Socialism is being sold, because the core components are the problem. Government control of Private Industry doesn't work, the choice of the people influencing such a powerful government is an illusion. A socialist nation is unbelievably fragile, just ask all of the Socialist Nations that have failed.

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Like saveliberty, you are confusing communism with socialism. Bernie has never advocated the government taking control of private industry. But he -has- advocated for the reigning in of the banks, who have become parasitical to the general population in the extreme. He has also advocated for the raising of the minimum wage, and even of employee-owned companies, which I strongly believe is the only way we'll get rid of the parasytical nature of many large corporations.

Russia struggled for many years on generous loans from other countries, America included, before finally realizing government control of industry has not, can not, and will not ever work.

Russia was a communist country, not a socialist one, let alone democratic socialist. I agree that that degree of centralization simply can't work. People who work in companies should be the ones to own them.

People also keep citing the Socialist Nations that have yet to fail, without realizing they're slowly failing or shifting towards America's capitalism.

I think it's time we make a clear separation between socialism and democratic socialism:
**Social democrats believed they could use government, selected by democratic elections, to achieve social improvements via reforms of (or expansions to) government aid programs and regulation of the marketplace and big business. Democracy, properly harnessed, and not a socialist state, would fix social ills.

Democratic socialists, by contrast, believed in pushing explicitly socialist goals via democratically-elected governments – goals such as widespread public ownership or nationalization of resources and a government explicitly of the working class.**

Source: Bernie Sanders Is No Socialist - The Globalist

Furthermore, the blog post incorrectly defines Communism, so that discredits itself on the spot.

First of all, as I was mentioning to saveliberty, most people would not consider The Huffington Post to be a blog. Anyone with an internet connection and a little spare time can write a blog. The Huffington Post was recently acquired for $315 million dollars by AOL in 2012 (which I suspect is already shifting its direction more to the right -.-). It was also ranked "#1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[12]" in that same year.

Secondly, why do you think that it "incorrectly defines communism"?

It also clearly has no idea what Socialism even is.

Again, what has drawn you to this conclusion?

Yes, while this character is not from manga or anime, I am into both. Mary is actually from the RPG Maker Adventure Horror game Ib.

Cool . I had thought that perhaps the character was Gosick. I haven't even seen the series, but the character looked somewhat similar. I'm a big fan of many animes, as well as a few manga. I have played a few text based RPGs online when I was younger, and World of Warcraft not so long ago, but the only online games I play now are on Facebook, and I don't play them nearly as much as I used to. I am -very- curious as to whether you have any favourite anime films or series. I don't imagine you've heard of my all time favourite anime series (St. Luminous Mission High School), few people have, but after that, I like some fairly popular ones, including some political mecha types (Rah Xephon, Code Geass and Evangelion), as well as others with political messages such as Phantom: Requiem for the Phantom. For films, Wolf Brigade, Grave of the Fireflies and Spirited Away come to mind.

 

[Kristian]

Aliens are far from earth.

Do not exist also in our galaxy.

 

[Kristian]

I think Communism better name on Socialism.

 

[Dale Smith]

Don't think people 'cut science' for people's other beliefs, either. People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and the fact that you're not okay with other people accepting it only goes to show how intolerant Democrats are of opinions and beliefs that conflict with their own.

I take it you are a conservative ;-)? Surely you aren't a fan of Trump? I'm not a fan of Hillary, but Bernie, he was something else in my view. Now that he lost, if I were American, I think I'd be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party).

Why? No socialist country has ever survived for more than 90 years. All of the Scandinavian country's, save those with oil, are in dire straits.

The United States could have been considered a social democratic country, back when Franklin D. Roosevelt made the "New Deal" reforms. I would argue that the erosion of those reforms is the reason the U.S. is in such dire straits today. Take heart though, it's not just the U.S. that is in these dire straits. Environmentally rapacious trickle down economics is something that is being practiced far and wide and the results are coming in...

The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight. That is the very nature of socialist countries.

The soviet union was a communist oligarchy, not a democratic socialist country. The Huffington Post explains the difference in the following article:
History Lesson: Bernie Sanders is no 'Communist,' and 'Democratic Socialists' are as American as Apple Pie.

Eventually you run out of other peoples money and then you're screwed.

People are so focused on 'money' and who currently possesses it. What people -should- be focusing on is, who is doing the actual -work- of running the country. Certainly not the rapacious bankers and the other corporate cronies. No, their focus is to leach off of all the -real- workers, like a tapeworm. The general population in essence creates most money from their signatures when they sign loan papers at the bank. The bank is the only entity allowed to literally create money out of these loans. The banks give them newly created money in the form of "credit", which only bankers are allowed to engage in with their vile fractional reserve banking. Anyone else trying to create money in this way or any other way would be charged for fraud. But the "Federal" Reserve (which is controlled by the banks) can -use- this newly created money to buy up bonds, which then turns into actual cash after its maturity date. The following 4 minute video explains it:


The banks, being the source of most new money, naturally can greatly influence large corporations which rely on those loans, which over time has become as rapacious as they are. The following 45 minute documentary on the subject of money creation is more in depth then the previous one:

The problem that you have of course is that mankind is governed by self interest. Your utopian ideal while cute, is not born out by reality. The reality is when a group of people is allowed to sit back and take it easy, while sponging off of a small group of producers, those producers eventually get pissed off and stop working. then all get to starve.

And no, it doesn't matter who is doing the work in the long run. That is a Marxist ideal, the reality is there are many people who can do simple work. In fact the majority of the population of this planet can do menial work. Thus, menial work is not particularly valuable. Work that is doable by a small group of people on the other hand, that is valuable.

The problem arises when you get a group of fundamentally not smart people called politicians, who rely on the votes of the ignorant to get themselves in power. Then, they take from the producers and give a bit to the masses while keeping the majority of that which they took for themselves and their preferred minions. FDR was great at taking money from the middle class, those least able to give it, and giving it to his preferred people.

The rich got richer under FDR than at any other time save for the current demagogue obama. That is a fact. Under FDR and his policies, the wealthiest 2% of the population of this country went from controlling 76% of this nations wealth to controlling 90% of the wealth while reducing their overall number to where they are now less than one percent of the population. That is a fact. Under progressive policies the wealthiest become even richer, and the poor stay static (5 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty and there are more people living in poverty than before the "war" started) and the middle class suffers. That is a fact.

Seems like there are a lot of sheep in america that have been brainwashed by our corrupt schools that both FDR and Reagan were great presidents when in fact they were both mass murderers and traiters to americans.Reagan same as FDR also had the rich get richer under him and betrayed the middle class familys contrary to the myth spread about him.

You da man!!!!!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Like saveliberty, you are confusing communism with socialism. Bernie has never advocated the government taking control of private industry. But he -has- advocated for the reigning in of the banks, who have become parasitical to the general population in the extreme. He has also advocated for the raising of the minimum wage, and even of employee-owned companies, which I strongly believe is the only way we'll get rid of the parasytical nature of many large corporations.

No, I'm not. By definition, Communism doesn't have a government or a currency, Russia had both. Everything in the Nation was owned by the government, means of production included. that's a core component of Socialism. Your perceived definition of Socialism is inherently wrong. People can also claim that industry would be owned by the people, but 'public ownership' is government ownership. For everyone to own something, the government has to regulate and control it.

Minimum wage being raised means that the cost of living would also rise, California is a good example, it has a city with the highest cost of living in the nation. Even if that weren't the case, only 3% of people even make minimum wage, the rest make higher than minimum wage, because businesses pay them more on their own. In order to make money, the businesses have to pay its employees enough for them to be able to afford their products, so businesses pay their employees enough on their own.

Russia was a communist country, not a socialist one, let alone democratic socialist. I agree that that degree of centralization simply can't work. People who work in companies should be the ones to own them.

Again, Communism by definition has no government or currency, Russia had both. They were Socialist. Furthermore, every form of Marxism cannot work, so regardless of what it is, it hardly matters.

I think it's time we make a clear separation between socialism and democratic socialism:
**

Social democrats believed they could use government, selected by democratic elections, to achieve social improvements via reforms of (or expansions to) government aid programs and regulation of the marketplace and big business. Democracy, properly harnessed, and not a socialist state, would fix social ills.

Democratic socialists, by contrast, believed in pushing explicitly socialist goals via democratically-elected governments – goals such as widespread public ownership or nationalization of resources and a government explicitly of the working class.**

There's no separation, because allowing the government to regulate every business is government control. At that point, it may as well be government industry. The votes would be a front, too, because the government holds all of the power. You also basically said "Government wouldn't own the businesses, but it would own the businesses". There's no difference, the government controls the Private Industry, and holds all of the power. Democratic Socialism is a myth, rising out of the failed ideal that is Socialism.

First of all, as I was mentioning to saveliberty, most people would not consider The Huffington Post to be a blog. Anyone with an internet connection and a little spare time can write a blog. The Huffington Post was recently acquired for $315 million dollars by AOL in 2012 (which I suspect is already shifting its direction more to the right -.-). It was also ranked "#1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[12]" in that same year.

The Huffington Post is an arm of the Liberals. It has just as much credibility as CNN... that being none.

Secondly, why do you think that it "incorrectly defines communism"?
Again, what has drawn you to this conclusion?

History? Facts? The actual definition of the terms Socialism and Communism? Socialism is "Public Control" of the means of production, and "Equality". In other words, in order to make things 'equal', the government takes control of private industry, then redistributes 'wealth' to the lazy people of the Nation. It rewards failure and punishes success, taking away and need to succeed, and the rewards of doing such. Any rewards you would garner with your success would be given to the failures. Those who carry the lazy on their backs would eventually get tired of it, and the Nation would have to force people to work, taking away rights and free will, and making the citizens government property.

Economically, it also can't work. You really think businesses will hang out and be forced to allow the government to control them? That's laughable, they'll go to other countries, and under government control, they will be far less efficient. Franklin Roosevelt's failure of a presidency is a great example. He took control of private industry with the NIRA, and made all employees unions. The economy was awful, and recovery was extremely slow, and it turned the Recession into a Great Depression.

Cool . I had thought that perhaps the character was Gosick. I haven't even seen the series, but the character looked somewhat similar. I'm a big fan of many animes, as well as a few manga. I have played a few text based RPGs online when I was younger, and World of Warcraft not so long ago, but the only online games I play now are on Facebook, and I don't play them nearly as much as I used to. I am -very- curious as to whether you have any favourite anime films or series. I don't imagine you've heard of my all time favourite anime series (St. Luminous Mission High School), few people have, but after that, I like some fairly popular ones, including some political mecha types (Rah Xephon, Code Geass and Evangelion), as well as others with political messages such as Phantom: Requiem for the Phantom. For films, Wolf Brigade, Grave of the Fireflies and Spirited Away come to mind.

PumpkinRow's Anime List - MyAnimeList.net
Here's my anime list account, obviously the highly rated ones are what I liked. Out of what you listed, I've seen Code Geass, Evangelion, Grave of the Fireflies, and Spirited away. Code Geass was good, the rest were okay, I disliked Evangelion to some degree, but Rebuild of Evangelion was pretty good. I've been getting into JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Soul Eater, Kaze no Stigma, Chrome Shelled Regios, Darker than Black, Full Metal Panic, and StrAIn, definitely worth taking a look at. My favorite non-action anime are Yuru Yuri, it has three seasons, and I hope a fourth is on the way, A-Channel, K-On, and Ro-Kyu-Bu.

 

[phoenyx]

Cool . I had thought that perhaps the character was Gosick. I haven't even seen the series, but the character looked somewhat similar. I'm a big fan of many animes, as well as a few manga. I have played a few text based RPGs online when I was younger, and World of Warcraft not so long ago, but the only online games I play now are on Facebook, and I don't play them nearly as much as I used to. I am -very- curious as to whether you have any favourite anime films or series. I don't imagine you've heard of my all time favourite anime series (St. Luminous Mission High School), few people have, but after that, I like some fairly popular ones, including some political mecha types (Rah Xephon, Code Geass and Evangelion), as well as others with political messages such as Phantom: Requiem for the Phantom. For films, Wolf Brigade, Grave of the Fireflies and Spirited Away come to mind.

PumpkinRow's Anime List - MyAnimeList.net
Here's my anime list account, obviously the highly rated ones are what I liked. Out of what you listed, I've seen Code Geass, Evangelion, Grave of the Fireflies, and Spirited away. Code Geass was good, the rest were okay, I disliked Evangelion to some degree, but Rebuild of Evangelion was pretty good. I've been getting into JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Soul Eater, Kaze no Stigma, Chrome Shelled Regios, Darker than Black, Full Metal Panic, and StrAIn, definitely worth taking a look at. My favorite non-action anime are Yuru Yuri, it has three seasons, and I hope a fourth is on the way, A-Channel, K-On, and Ro-Kyu-Bu.

I'm skipping the other part of the discussion for now, it's been so long since I've talked to a fellow anime fan -.- I liked Darker then Black a lot too . Haven't really seen any of the others that you've mentioned yet. I don't think I've seen quite as many anime as you have- certainly, my own list on myanimelist isn't even half as long . Still, after looking at your list, there are definitely some more animes we both really like. Evangelion was the first anime series I ever saw, so it holds a special place in my heart. Grave of the Fireflies may have been second. Anyway, I've just made a thread to try to get some discussion on animes going over in the TV forum, hopefully you'll drop by ...
Anywhere else here like Anime?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

well said.FDR was a traiter [sic] to americans [sic] actually.FDR did more damamge [sic] to the country than any other president at that TIME no doubt,but your way off base if you include him with all the other presidents since then.

compared to many of the presidents we have had since FDR,the damage FDR did to this nation back then is peanuts compared to many of them.

All of the actions of further administrations, that further undermined the Constitution and thus further damaged this nation, were built on the precedents set by FDR. It was FDR and these precedents that made all the further damage possible.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In God many Christians trust to belief no shortly Protestants. But I cannot when once breathe inside me he will takes my belief before I starts to faith.

Sense no makes that.

 

[phoenyx]

In God many Christians trust to belief no shortly Protestants. But I cannot when once breathe inside me he will takes my belief before I starts to faith.

Sense no makes that.

My guess is he's using an online translator. Those things can mangle sentence structure terribly -.-

 

[phoenyx]

The United States could have been considered a social democratic country, back when Franklin D. Roosevelt made the "New Deal" reforms. I would argue that the erosion of those reforms is the reason the U.S. is in such dire straits today.

It was those reforms that set America up for the decline that it has been in ever since;

Do you have evidence to support that claim?

that have established precedents by which our government has strayed ever farther from the model defined for it in the Constitution, and ever deeper into corruption and tyranny. FDR may have meant well, but he, alone, has done more to damage this nation than any other President.

Could you explain why you believe that FDR was responsible for these things?

 

[phoenyx]

The reason it is so fucking insane is because we as a society are so accepting of it, even through it is more insane then the other 4 choices. We give up logic, rationality and hate on science because of it, why? Because we're all brainwashed to believe some 2,000 year old book! Would we do the same to someone screaming about space aliens visiting his room at night or someone that came back from a hiking trip that says he seen big foot? Fuck no. We wouldn't cut science because of these two individuals and we wouldn't give up our rationality. We only accept the holy bible for the same reason as 100 bucks may get the mob after you, but 1 trillion bucks gets you bailed out by the government.

Don't think people 'cut science' for people's other beliefs, either. People are allowed to believe whatever they like, and the fact that you're not okay with other people accepting it only goes to show how intolerant Democrats are of opinions and beliefs that conflict with their own.

I take it you are a conservative ;-)? Surely you aren't a fan of Trump? I'm not a fan of Hillary, but Bernie, he was something else in my view. Now that he lost, if I were American, I think I'd be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party).

Why? No socialist country has ever survived for more than 90 years. All of the Scandinavian country's, save those with oil, are in dire straits.

The United States could have been considered a social democratic country, back when Franklin D. Roosevelt made the "New Deal" reforms. I would argue that the erosion of those reforms is the reason the U.S. is in such dire straits today. Take heart though, it's not just the U.S. that is in these dire straits. Environmentally rapacious trickle down economics is something that is being practiced far and wide and the results are coming in...

The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight. That is the very nature of socialist countries.

The soviet union was a communist oligarchy, not a democratic socialist country. The Huffington Post explains the difference in the following article:
History Lesson: Bernie Sanders is no 'Communist,' and 'Democratic Socialists' are as American as Apple Pie.

Eventually you run out of other peoples money and then you're screwed.

People are so focused on 'money' and who currently possesses it. What people -should- be focusing on is, who is doing the actual -work- of running the country. Certainly not the rapacious bankers and the other corporate cronies. No, their focus is to leach off of all the -real- workers, like a tapeworm. The general population in essence creates most money from their signatures when they sign loan papers at the bank. The bank is the only entity allowed to literally create money out of these loans. The banks give them newly created money in the form of "credit", which only bankers are allowed to engage in with their vile fractional reserve banking. Anyone else trying to create money in this way or any other way would be charged for fraud. But the "Federal" Reserve (which is controlled by the banks) can -use- this newly created money to buy up bonds, which then turns into actual cash after its maturity date. The following 4 minute video explains it:


The banks, being the source of most new money, naturally can greatly influence large corporations which rely on those loans, which over time has become as rapacious as they are. The following 45 minute documentary on the subject of money creation is more in depth then the previous one:

The problem that you have of course is that mankind is governed by self interest.

I never argued it wasn't. That being said, I think the better educated people are, the more they consider their families, their communities, their nations, and even their world, as a part of their 'self'. It makes all the difference.

Your utopian ideal while cute, is not born out by reality. The reality is when a group of people is allowed to sit back and take it easy, while sponging off of a small group of producers, those producers eventually get pissed off and stop working. then all get to starve.

I agree. What I don't think you understand is that this is happening even as we speak. They are the banking class, and the elites around them that are parasitically destroying America and most of the rest of the world as well.

And no, it doesn't matter who is doing the work in the long run. That is a Marxist ideal, the reality is there are many people who can do simple work. In fact the majority of the population of this planet can do menial work. Thus, menial work is not particularly valuable. Work that is doable by a small group of people on the other hand, that is valuable.

I can agree that there are some jobs that are hard to do well. Good political leaders are hard to come by. That being said, whenever wealth starts to concentrate to the levels that it is getting to at present, there's bound to be trouble soon, and I think it's already happening. Income inequality is now the highest it's been since 1928:
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928

We all know that after the "roarding 20s", we got the great depression. Only this time, I've heard that it'll be worse.

The problem arises when you get a group of fundamentally not smart people called politicians, who rely on the votes of the ignorant to get themselves in power.

Have you never questioned -why- it is that so many are so poorly educated?

Then, they take from the producers and give a bit to the masses while keeping the majority of that which they took for themselves and their preferred minions. FDR was great at taking money from the middle class, those least able to give it, and giving it to his preferred people.

The rich got richer under FDR than at any other time save for the current demagogue obama. That is a fact. Under FDR and his policies, the wealthiest 2% of the population of this country went from controlling 76% of this nations wealth to controlling 90% of the wealth while reducing their overall number to where they are now less than one percent of the population. That is a fact. Under progressive policies the wealthiest become even richer, and the poor stay static (5 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty and there are more people living in poverty than before the "war" started) and the middle class suffers. That is a fact.

That's certainly not the way I've heard of it, but I'm the first to admit that I'm not exactly an expert on FDR. Have you heard of a film by Sony Pictures called "Inside Job". It's not what you might be thinking- this has nothing to do with 9/11. It's talking about the financial collapse of 2008. I'm interested in your view of it. If you haven't seen it, here's the trailer to give you an idea of its message:

 

[phoenyx]

What's crazier?

1. Believing in god? There's no evidence for such! Believe it or not all the evidence, data and the reality of the facts all are against such! Pretty freaking crazy!
2. Believing in Aliens? Well, there's 300 billion stars in our galaxy and some stars have 3-8 planets. We have found about 8-9 planets that could already have such life. It isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.
3. Well, half a million years ago a huge ape that stood 10-12 feet tall was very real.
4. No evidence to support it but the US government has done some fucked up stuff in history!
5. No evidence for such! Pretty crazy as far as I can tell. Now McCain and some other people in our government did visit and come close to baghdadi,,,so who knows.

I believe that the craziest effin thing on this list is believing in some all powerful creature and believing in what some 2,000 year old book says.

As to God, it all depends on how you define it. I'm a Pantheist, Pantheists define God as everything combined. By that definition, everyone believes in God. I also think there's plenty of evidence to support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job . As to Israel funding ISIS, I believe there is actually evidence of this. Though I haven't really investigated it myself, a site that I trust has found that there is such evidence and written an article about it:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-is...ted-by-the-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia/5396171

I also believe there's evidence of Aliens, read some books that support this, and I thought the show "Ancient Aliens" and the documentary "Thrive" were all quite credible. Finally, as to Bigfoot, I don't know. I found an article that claims some scientists have found evidence that they exist:
Bigfoot does EXIST claim scientists after five years of research: See their video

That being said, they seem to be saying that they're within the range of human tallness and hairiness (the hairiness thing would actually be the rarer trait by far).

Where'd you hear about these 10-12 foot apes ?

Yeah Bigfoot,I have not done any research into,its possible no doubt but as far as i know,there is no solid proof in it.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in the same boat on Bigfoot, but it's interesting to know that 'Bigfoot" atleast -did- exist, in the not too distant past, which lends more credence to the idea that a few might still be with us today.

western civilization had to have something to cling onto and believe in for all the evil that goes on in the world so they clung on to the hope that god exists and that there will be a perfect world someday despite the lack of evidence.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, God is just a word, and a rather loosely defined one at that. Pantheists such as myself define God as everything. By that definition, everyone believes in God.

the other three as I just proved have indeed been proved to be factual.

Proved to whom?

Thats what baffles me about you,you are so worried about 9/11 what happened in the past instead of being concerned about the present and the future which is the existence of UFO'S which is something that affects us right now because it is something that is going on right now in the PRESENT.yet you just want to discuss the past and not be concerned about whats going on NOW?

There is a lot of research to back up the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Thus, it's fairly easy to argue the point without having to do a lot of investigative work oneself, other then some googling. Despite your insistence that I focus too much on 9/11, you're the one whose online name here is literally "9/11 was an inside job" . Have you considered changing it? Anyway, I've taking a bit of a break from addressing 9/11, working on a few other threads for a bit.

 

[phoenyx]

I think Communism better name on Socialism.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[phoenyx]

Like saveliberty, you are confusing communism with socialism. Bernie has never advocated the government taking control of private industry. But he -has- advocated for the reigning in of the banks, who have become parasitical to the general population in the extreme. He has also advocated for the raising of the minimum wage, and even of employee-owned companies, which I strongly believe is the only way we'll get rid of the parasytical nature of many large corporations.

No, I'm not. By definition, Communism doesn't have a government or a currency, Russia had both.

Where are you getting your definition? I just googled communism, this is what it gave me for a definition:
"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

You can't be paid without currency, and there is no mention of a lack of government. I also googled images for Communism. I got a lot of Russian sickles, but I also got this image, which I think exemplifies what I'm trying to say, namely that Socialism, and in particular democratic socialism, is neither "real world" capitalism nor communism, but something in between:

Everything in the Nation was owned by the government, means of production included. that's a core component of Socialism.

That's only -one- form of socialism, and it's not one that Bernie ever espoused. Wikipedia goes into the different varieties of socialism:
**Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperativeownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]**

Source: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your perceived definition of Socialism is inherently wrong. People can also claim that industry would be owned by the people, but 'public ownership' is government ownership. For everyone to own something, the government has to regulate and control it.

Regulation is -not- the same thing as ownership. Financial markets are regulated, if badly, in the U.S. That doesn't mean the U.S. government owns said financial markets. The irony is that it is the regulations that allow banks, but no one else, to create money out of citizen's signatures, that give banks such a lucrative hold on money.

Minimum wage being raised means that the cost of living would also rise, California is a good example, it has a city with the highest cost of living in the nation.

Correlation is not causation. Just because California has one of the highest costs of living doesn't mean that its slightly higher minimum wage is the reason for it. Early analysis of Seattle's increase in minimum wage found that the impact was minimal:
Early analysis of Seattle’s $15 wage law: Effect on prices minimal one year after implementation | UW Today

Even if that weren't the case, only 3% of people even make minimum wage, the rest make higher than minimum wage, because businesses pay them more on their own. In order to make money, the businesses have to pay its employees enough for them to be able to afford their products, so businesses pay their employees enough on their own.

No, they don't. Robert Reich explains what really happens:
**
We should be raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour.

Here are seven reasons why:

1. Had the minimum wage of 1968 simply stayed even with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour today. But the typical worker is also about twice as productive as then. Some of those productivity gains should go to workers at the bottom.

2. $10.10 isn’t enough to lift all workers and their families out of poverty. Most low-wage workers aren’t young teenagers; they’re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. And they and their families need a higher minimum.

3. For this reason, a $10.10 minimum would also still require the rest of us to pay Medicaid, food-stamps, and other programs necessary to get poor families out of poverty — thereby indirectly subsidizing employers who refuse to pay more. Bloomberg View describes McDonalds and Walmart as “America’s biggest welfare queens” because their employees receive so much public assistance. (Some, like McDonalds, even advise their employees to use public programs because their pay is so low.)**

Source: Robert Reich: 7 Reasons Why the Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $15 an Hour

every form of Marxism cannot work, so regardless of what it is, it hardly matters.

I think words may be getting in our way here. The bottom line of socialist democracy is the notion that we care about our fellow human beings and pay them wages that will allow them to live a decent life without needing to go on public assitance.

I think it's time we make a clear separation between socialism and democratic socialism:
**

Social democrats believed they could use government, selected by democratic elections, to achieve social improvements via reforms of (or expansions to) government aid programs and regulation of the marketplace and big business. Democracy, properly harnessed, and not a socialist state, would fix social ills.

Democratic socialists, by contrast, believed in pushing explicitly socialist goals via democratically-elected governments – goals such as widespread public ownership or nationalization of resources and a government explicitly of the working class.**

There's no separation, because allowing the government to regulate every business is government control.

Some government control is good. Everyone knows that. You don't want thieves to be allowed to roam free, do you? And yet, so many seem content to let the thieves on wall street continue to rob everyone else blind.

You also basically said "Government wouldn't own the businesses, but it would own the businesses".

No, I didn't. Worker owned companies is -not- the same thing as government owned companies.

First of all, as I was mentioning to saveliberty, most people would not consider The Huffington Post to be a blog. Anyone with an internet connection and a little spare time can write a blog. The Huffington Post was recently acquired for $315 million dollars by AOL in 2012 (which I suspect is already shifting its direction more to the right -.-). It was also ranked "#1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[12]" in that same year.

The Huffington Post is an arm of the Liberals. It has just as much credibility as CNN... that being none.

Why, because you don't believe it has credibility?

Economically, it also can't work. You really think businesses will hang out and be forced to allow the government to control them? That's laughable, they'll go to other countries...

I think people have largely forgotten that we don't need business executives funnelling most money into their own pockets while the working class go without. We need -workers- are good administrators, not fat cats figuring out how to drain the working class dry.

Franklin Roosevelt's failure of a presidency is a great example. He took control of private industry with the NIRA, and made all employees unions. The economy was awful, and recovery was extremely slow, and it turned the Recession into a Great Depression.

I don't know enough of what happened during Franklin Roosevelt's time, but I can certainly agree that having the government take over all industry is not a good idea. The idea that workers should all partially own the companies they work for makes the most sense- there is nothing like knowing that you -own- a part of the company you work for to make you feel like it's worth making it do better. The company does better, so do your stocks.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The United States could have been considered a social democratic country, back when Franklin D. Roosevelt made the "New Deal" reforms. I would argue that the erosion of those reforms is the reason the U.S. is in such dire straits today.

It was those reforms that set America up for the decline that it has been in ever since;

Do you have evidence to support that claim?

that have established precedents by which our government has strayed ever farther from the model defined for it in the Constitution, and ever deeper into corruption and tyranny. FDR may have meant well, but he, alone, has done more to damage this nation than any other President.

Could you explain why you believe that FDR was responsible for these things?

To radically oversimplify a much more complex story than I have time or patience to tell right now, and which is not terribly relevant to this thread anyway…

With his reforms, FDR seized massive, unprecedented powers on behalf of the federal government, far beyond what it was legitimately authorized under the Constitution to exercise. He employed threats, intimidation, and other corrupt means to coerce the courts into going along with his blatantly-unconstitutional usurpations. By doing so, and by the precedents that he thus established, he effectively gutted the Tenth Amendment, and began an avalanche of further illegal usurpations on the part of the federal government that have continued ever since.

Just to give one example, of the sort of damage this has caused.

In the 1910s, there was a very strong movement that wanted to outlaw the production and trade of alcoholic beverages nationwide. It was then clearly and correctly understood that as the Constitution stood, the federal government had no legitimate authority to do so, and that there was only one legitimate way that this prohibition could be put into effect. See the Eighteenth Amendment. About a decade or so later, when the public changed its mind, the same method had to be employed in order to reverse it. See the Twenty-First Amendment.

Prior to the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the federal government did not have any authority regarding alcoholic beverages, nor does it have any authority, after the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. The federal government didn't have this authority, and the only way it could be given this authority was to amend the Constitution.

Nearly all of FDR's reforms were outside the legitimate scope of federal authority. The federal government has never had the legitimate authority to enact any of it, and the only way the federal government ever could have that authority would be for the Constitution to be amended to give it that authority.

And this creep of ever increasing, illegally-usurped federal powers has continued since then. A very large portion of the activities of the federal government, it has no legitimate authority to conduct, and can only ever be given that authority by amending the Constitution.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong-wing “science” is an ideology—almost a religion—far less rational than any genuine religion. I guess it's what they use to fill the hole left in their soul by rejecting God,.

Good grief! It is not a religion. IT is just science. Lol. Sorry, but religious folks are pretty whacked out.

It most certainly is not science, in any genuine sense. It may not be a religion, but it is much more like a religion than it is like genuine science. And if anyone is “pretty whacked out”, it is those who have chosen to reject and rebel against God, and to substitute this false science/religion for genuine religion.

That's whacky right there. Religion and science are opposites. Science needs and tests evidence. Religion is strictly faith based without any evidence required.

No. Science and religion were once one and the same. Western ideology has confused you and others.

Yes, they were. However, around 3000 years ago that started to change. It took a long time though for policies to be created that allowed mankind to make meaningful observations that he was then able to use to advance civilization.

The first advanced civilizations merged religion and science. Look at what the Egyptians did and how they taught the Greeks. To date western civilization has not achieved what the Egyptians did in building those pyramids. The very calendar we use comes from the astronomers of Egypt. They mathematics, sciences, and the very first book all hail from Egypt. All the religions are based on principles first uttered there. Our system of justice also uses the concepts and even the symbols of that great civilization.

 

[westwall]

Good grief! It is not a religion. IT is just science. Lol. Sorry, but religious folks are pretty whacked out.

It most certainly is not science, in any genuine sense. It may not be a religion, but it is much more like a religion than it is like genuine science. And if anyone is “pretty whacked out”, it is those who have chosen to reject and rebel against God, and to substitute this false science/religion for genuine religion.

That's whacky right there. Religion and science are opposites. Science needs and tests evidence. Religion is strictly faith based without any evidence required.

No. Science and religion were once one and the same. Western ideology has confused you and others.

Yes, they were. However, around 3000 years ago that started to change. It took a long time though for policies to be created that allowed mankind to make meaningful observations that he was then able to use to advance civilization.

The first advanced civilizations merged religion and science. Look at what the Egyptians did and how they taught the Greeks. To date western civilization has not achieved what the Egyptians did in building those pyramids. The very calendar we use comes from the astronomers of Egypt. They mathematics, sciences, and the very first book all hail from Egypt. All the religions are based on principles first uttered there. Our system of justice also uses the concepts and even the symbols of that great civilization.

I guess you've never heard of the Sumerian Code of Ur, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Brehon Law of the Celts? All of which are either contemporaneous with the Egyptians or predate them as is the case of the Brehon Law. The problem is you read a single bit of history and ignore all the others that predate your hero's. As far as math go's the Ancient Druids had every bit as good a handle on math as the ancient Egyptians. And, they did it at least 1000 years before the Egyptians figured it out.

 

[Asclepias]

It most certainly is not science, in any genuine sense. It may not be a religion, but it is much more like a religion than it is like genuine science. And if anyone is “pretty whacked out”, it is those who have chosen to reject and rebel against God, and to substitute this false science/religion for genuine religion.

That's whacky right there. Religion and science are opposites. Science needs and tests evidence. Religion is strictly faith based without any evidence required.

No. Science and religion were once one and the same. Western ideology has confused you and others.

Yes, they were. However, around 3000 years ago that started to change. It took a long time though for policies to be created that allowed mankind to make meaningful observations that he was then able to use to advance civilization.

The first advanced civilizations merged religion and science. Look at what the Egyptians did and how they taught the Greeks. To date western civilization has not achieved what the Egyptians did in building those pyramids. The very calendar we use comes from the astronomers of Egypt. They mathematics, sciences, and the very first book all hail from Egypt. All the religions are based on principles first uttered there. Our system of justice also uses the concepts and even the symbols of that great civilization.

I guess you've never heard of the Sumerian Code of Ur, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Brehon Law of the Celts? All of which are either contemporaneous with the Egyptians or predate them as is the case of the Brehon Law. The problem is you read a single bit of history and ignore all the others that predate your hero's. As far as math go's the Ancient Druids had every bit as good a handle on math as the ancient Egyptians. And, they did it at least 1000 years before the Egyptians figured it out.

Yes I have heard of them. The people in Sumer were Black as well. However the point is that europeans got this information from Egypt not Sumer. Your problem is that you dont seem to be able to follow the point. This isnt about which civilization was oldest. This is about which one is responsible for providing the foundation of the world. Regardless we know for a fact Egyptian writing predates Sumers.

 

[westwall]

That's whacky right there. Religion and science are opposites. Science needs and tests evidence. Religion is strictly faith based without any evidence required.

No. Science and religion were once one and the same. Western ideology has confused you and others.

Yes, they were. However, around 3000 years ago that started to change. It took a long time though for policies to be created that allowed mankind to make meaningful observations that he was then able to use to advance civilization.

The first advanced civilizations merged religion and science. Look at what the Egyptians did and how they taught the Greeks. To date western civilization has not achieved what the Egyptians did in building those pyramids. The very calendar we use comes from the astronomers of Egypt. They mathematics, sciences, and the very first book all hail from Egypt. All the religions are based on principles first uttered there. Our system of justice also uses the concepts and even the symbols of that great civilization.

I guess you've never heard of the Sumerian Code of Ur, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Brehon Law of the Celts? All of which are either contemporaneous with the Egyptians or predate them as is the case of the Brehon Law. The problem is you read a single bit of history and ignore all the others that predate your hero's. As far as math go's the Ancient Druids had every bit as good a handle on math as the ancient Egyptians. And, they did it at least 1000 years before the Egyptians figured it out.

Yes I have heard of them. The people in Sumer were Black as well. However the point is that europeans got this information from Egypt not Sumer. Your problem is that you dont seem to be able to follow the point. This isnt about which civilization was oldest. This is about which one is responsible for providing the foundation of the world. Regardless we know for a fact Egyptian writing predates Sumers.

They were? That's funny, where did they all go? How about them Celts, they all black too? The Celtic law predates Egypt and MANY of those laws are still in use today. In fact, the Celtic laws were less barbaric, far less in point of fact than any of the civilizations you are referring to. They even had anti animal cruelty laws on the books that weren't adopted again until this last century. The black civilizations had no concept of animal protection. Period.

No, it is you who is trying to steal other cultures accomplishments.

 

[Muhammed]

1) Believing in God: Personally I'm an athiest, however since it seems like every person who believes in God has a different view of what God is. For instance, my wife is Catholic and she believes that God from the Bible is the universe and the laws that govern it. I wouldn't call that crazy.

2) Believing in Aliens: I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal. Therefore I believe that there are an infinite number of aliens out there somewhere. Not crazy.

3) Believing in Bigfoot: It's certainly possible, but not scientifically confirmed. There are vast areas of forest that are unexplored where they could be living. And we almost certainly have not discovered every animal on Earth. As recently as the 1920s the mountain gorilla was considered to be a myth. Not crazy.

4) Believing that 9-11 was done by the US government: Totally fucking loony, yet a very common belief. A poll in 2006 indicated that approximately one third of American believed that crazy shit. The Democrats rode the truther wave into control of the House and Senate in 2007. Those people are fucking nuts.

5) Believing that israel is funding the isis!: I don't think they are but I wouldn't call the notion crazy.