What's crazier

[Book of Jeremiah]

After looking at your poll, it seems obvious that the craziest belief is to believe in aliens. Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.

Anyone who lives near our southern border knows better.

Those are "illegal aliens," Bob - not "space" aliens.... big difference.

Yes, but they are aliens, which disproves the claim that “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”

No, Bob. A Mexican who crosses our border illegally is not an extra - terestial ]sic] being nor do they fly in UFO's. They are as human as you and I are. What Matthew calls an alien is in reality a demonic being - a fallen angel. Mexican people are not fallen angels. They are just as human as all the rest of us!

The statement to which I was responding did not say, “Clearly there is no such thing as an extraterrestrial being.” It said, “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”.

After looking at your poll, it seems obvious that the craziest belief is to believe in aliens. Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.

Anyone who lives near our southern border knows better.

Those are "illegal aliens," Bob - not "space" aliens.... big difference.

Yes, but they are aliens, which disproves the claim that “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”

No, Bob. A Mexican who crosses our border illegally is not an extra - terestial ]sic] being nor do they fly in UFO's. They are as human as you and I are. What Matthew calls an alien is in reality a demonic being - a fallen angel. Mexican people are not fallen angels. They are just as human as all the rest of us!

The statement to which I was responding did not say, “Clearly there is no such thing as an extraterrestrial being.” It said, “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”.

Bob, I perceive that your problem (which is the deadliest of sins) is pride. You refuse to admit that you are wrong even when you have been proven wrong.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Anyone who lives near our southern border knows better.

Those are "illegal aliens," Bob - not "space" aliens.... big difference.

Yes, but they are aliens, which disproves the claim that “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”

No, Bob. A Mexican who crosses our border illegally is not an extra - terestial ]sic] being nor do they fly in UFO's. They are as human as you and I are. What Matthew calls an alien is in reality a demonic being - a fallen angel. Mexican people are not fallen angels. They are just as human as all the rest of us!

The statement to which I was responding did not say, “Clearly there is no such thing as an extraterrestrial being.” It said, “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”.

Anyone who lives near our southern border knows better.

Those are "illegal aliens," Bob - not "space" aliens.... big difference.

Yes, but they are aliens, which disproves the claim that “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”

No, Bob. A Mexican who crosses our border illegally is not an extra - terestial ]sic] being nor do they fly in UFO's. They are as human as you and I are. What Matthew calls an alien is in reality a demonic being - a fallen angel. Mexican people are not fallen angels. They are just as human as all the rest of us!

The statement to which I was responding did not say, “Clearly there is no such thing as an extraterrestrial being.” It said, “Clearly there is no such thing as an alien.”.

Bob, I perceive that your problem (which is the deadliest of sins) is pride. You refuse to admit that you are wrong even when you have been proven wrong.

Where have I been proven wrong, in this instance? It was you who made a sloppy statement, that I proved to be incorrect, not on the basis that what you meant was necessarily incorrect, but that your sloppy choice of words did not match your intent, so you ended up saying something that was easily proven to be untrue.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The discussion is over, Bob. You're wrong and you know it. Matthew didn't need to elaborate. We all knew what he meant. Including you.

______

Matthew's question, What's crazier?

1. Believing in God
   2 vote(s)
   13.3%
2. *
   Believing in Aliens
   2 vote(s)
   13.3%
3. 
   Believing in big foot
   3 vote(s)
   20.0%
4. 
   Believing that 9-11 was done by the US government
   5 vote(s)
   33.3%
5. 
   Believing that israel is funding the isis!
   
   • 3 vote(s)
     20.0%

 

[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?

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.

Interesting. I understand that the prohibitions on certain drugs got its debut through the ATF, which was originally established to control Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. What are your views on that?

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.

I think there are definitely some things where it makes sense for federal governments to regulate things; I think the FBI makes sense, atleast in concept. Similarly, I think it makes sense for the Federal government to build roads and bridges. Ofcourse, the regulation should be fair. Tell me, what do you think of the "Federal" reserve?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Interesting. I understand that the prohibitions on certain drugs got its debut through the ATF, which was originally established to control Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. What are your views on that?

The BATF (now, if I'm not mistaken, rolled into the DHS) is an agency that stood as a monument to government overreach and usurpation.

The federal government only briefly ever had any authority over alcohol, from the time the Eighteenth Amendment took effect until it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. The federal government has never had any legitimate authority with regard to tobacco. And the Second Amendment explicitly denies to all government, any authority regarding firearms.

The BATF has not existed for any purpose other than to overtly violate the Constitution.

As far as drug abuse, this is none of the federal government's business, either. The point demonstrated by the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments was that in order for the federal government to have authority over alcohol, the Constitution had to be amended to give it that authority, and then later, amended again to take that authority back from them. If we want there to be any national policy regarding drug abuse, then we need to amend the Constitution to give that authority to the federal government, just as it took the Eighteenth Amendment to give the federal government authority to regulate alcohol.

I think there are definitely some things where it makes sense for federal governments to regulate things; I think the FBI makes sense, at least in concept. Similarly, I think it makes sense for the Federal government to build roads and bridges. Of course, the regulation should be fair. Tell me, what do you think of the "Federal" reserve?

I'll admit that I don't really understand the Federal Reserve, and how it plays into our economic system. There's probably a good chance that if I did, I'd find it to be Constitutionally illegitimate.

As for anything that we think it makes sense for the federal government to control, my answer is the same—if the Constitution doesn't already explicitly delegate it to the federal government, then the federal government has no authority to touch it until and unless we amend the Constitution to give it that authority.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.

The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.

They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.

 

[phoenyx]

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."

What you just described is Socialism. To better specify, what you have been told is Communism is not Communism, but Socialism. Communism is defined as a system where there is no government, all people are equal, all people work. Nobody has currency because everyone is given everything equally, and no government is needed because the people do everything they're supposed to all the time. It's an extremist offshoot of Marxism. It has never actually been implemented, because it's impossible.

My source was google. That being said, I found that it was a pretty short explanation of communism, and it certainly wasn't comparing communism to socialism. So I found an article that does:
**Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Sometimes, the two are used interchangeably, though they are quite different. In theory, socialism and communism sound appealing, with everyone doing their share and working together to provide for the greater good. Each utilizes a planned production schedule to ensure the needs of all community members are met. They are utopian economic structures that some countries have tried; however, most have failed or become dictatorships, making reform nearly impossible.

In a communist society everything is owned by the working class and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy and poor classes. Instead, all are equal. Production from the community is distributed based upon need, not by effort or amount of work. It is expected that basic needs for each worker are met by the community, and there is no more to be obtained through working more than what is required. For example, if a worker puts in more time at work, he sees no additional reward, and production is minimally affected. The worker receives the same stipend and ration as before. Therefore, this type of economy often results in poor production, mass poverty and little advancement. This occurred in the 1980s to the Soviet Union when poverty became so widespread, and rebellions and revolutions caused a dissolution of the nation.

Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.

Both communism and socialism are near opposites of capitalism, with no private ownership and class equality. In capitalism, reward comes naturally without limitation to workers who exceed the normal minimums. When there is excess production, the owner can freely keep it, and he has no obligations to share his spoils with anyone else. A capitalist environment facilitates competition, and the result is unlimited advancement opportunity.

In modern society, many countries have adopted pieces of socialism into their economic and political policies. For example, in the United Kingdom, markets are allowed to fluctuate rather freely, and workers have unlimited earning potential based on their work. However, basic needs like healthcare are provided to everyone regardless of time or effort in their work. The welfare programs like food stamps in the United States are also forms of socialist policies that fit into an otherwise capitalist society.**

Source: What is the difference between communism and socialism? | Investopedia

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:

The image is inaccurate, because Russia was never Communist, they were Socialist. As I explained.

You have certainly -asserted- that Russia was never Communist, but you haven't proven it. Tell me, why was the only allowed party in the Soviet Union the Communist party, instead of, say, the Socialist party?

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.

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

And if the Federal government is regulating them poorly, choosing the winners and losers in our market, what makes you think that the government would suddenly do a non-awful job because we gave them power to regulate and control even MORE private industry? The businesses would pay our corrupt government to sabotage their competitors(Continue doing so), nobody wins. The government has already hosed us repeatedly, and the economic system you want gives them even more power to do so. You're trying to solve too much government with even more government.

I think you can almost see the problem, but not quite. Like many on the right side of politics, you blame the government for what troubles society, not realizing who is controlling said government; namely, the corporations. I can certainly agree that a larger government controlled by corporations is not the solution. The solution is to stop allowing corporations to bribe their way into power, by overturning court decisions such as Citizens United. Here's a trailer of "Inside Job" by Sony Pictures, a documentary on what caused the economic crash of 2008:


Government certainly played a role, looking the other way as Wall Street committed its financial crimes, but the documentary makes it clear -why- they looked the other way, namely that government officials are all but employed by Wall Street, and who wants to look too closely at what their employer is doing?

**
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

This guy has no idea what he's talking about. Federal Aid is a major part of why businesses are paying their employees what they are. It allows them to put less money back into the economy and still reap the same benefits. You should be advocating Federal Aid be abolished entirely, rather than just raising the minimum wage, and allowing Federal Aid to continue this trend. As I said before, businesses pay their employees what they know will be enough naturally, because if they don't, they'll have fewer consumers.

Again, you almost have it right. You're right, federal aid -is- allowing businesses to pay the miserably low wages they pay many of their employees. But the solution isn't to take away said federal aid and watch working people starve to death. No, the solution is to have enough decently paid work out there that they don't have to be subsidizing people just so that they can survive. The question you might consider asking is, why isn't there enough money to pay these workers decent wages? It's not like the corporations are poor. I wonder how much you know about corporations in general. For instance, have you seen a documentary called "The Corporation"? As wikipedia attests, it "won the World Cinema Audience Award: Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival, 2004, along with a Special Jury Award at theInternational Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in 2003[citation needed] and 2004.[citation needed]; Genie Award – Documentary; TIFF – People’s Choice Award."

Source: The Corporation (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you haven't seen it and are interested, here's the trailer:

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.

People don't need to be babied by the government. Failures should be allowed to fail alone.

This is not about 'babying' people. This is about ensuring their very survival.

What you're advocating is for people to be able to work for minimum wage, flipping burgers their entire lives.

I'm not a fan of the fast food industry, but so long as said industry is allowed to continue the way it is, then yes.

Succeeding wouldn't be needed anymore, it would hold no incentive, because if you do succeed, your money will just be taken and given to the nation's failures through legalized thievery.

Legalizing thievery is alive and well today, but it's not the people flipping burgers who are doing the thieving. It's the banks who are constantly devaluating the money supply, with its never ending creation of money by means of loans given to individuals and corporations.

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.

No, government control is not good, it's what we have right now, and it has allowed the government to become a business that chooses what businesses can succeed, and what can't. We have Wallstreet BECAUSE the government was allowed to control and regulate businesses.

I see that you didn't answer my question on thieves. Do you think it's fine if they roam free?

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

So, basically what Unions do.

No, in my view, the unions/executives dichotomy is not the best system. With worker owned companies, there is no union/executive dichotomy. Or, put another way, the union -owns- the company. There could be executives, but they would also be part of the union. The union, in a very real sense, would be the company. If the company does badly, so does everyone in the company. Conversely, if the company does well, so does everyone in the company.

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?

No, because they were shown to be taking orders from the DNC, which is advocating expansion of government, which is what you're advocating, against all logic.

Ah, you're talking about CNN, though, not The Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post just echoes what CNN says.

I haven't seen evidence of that.

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.

They're not draining the working class, the businesses don't function without them.

Yes, good administrators are needed, but not the fat cats just looking to pad their own bottom line. Here's why:
**
The real job creators are not CEOs or corporations or wealthy investors. The job creators are members of America’s vast middle class and the poor, whose purchases cause businesses to expand and invest.

America’s wealthy are richer than they’ve ever been. Big corporations are sitting on more cash they know what to do with. Corporate profits are at record levels. CEO pay continues to soar.

But the wealthy aren’t investing in new companies. Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of new business formation in the United States dropped by half, according to a Brookings study released in May.

Corporations aren’t expanding production or investing in research and development. Instead, they’re using their money to buy back their shares of stock.

There’s no reason for them to expand or invest if customers aren’t buying.

Consumer spending has grown more slowly in this recovery than in any previous one because consumers don’t have enough money to buy.

All the economic gains have been going to the top.

The Commerce Department reported last Friday that the economy grew at a 4.6 percent annual rate in the second quarter of the year.

So what? The median household’s income continues to drop.

Median household income is now 8 percent below what it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation. It’s 11 percent below its level in 2000.

It used to be that economic expansions improved the incomes of the bottom 90 percent more than the top 10 percent.

But starting with the “Reagan” recovery of 1982 to 1990, the benefits of economic growth during expansions have gone mostly to the top 10 percent.

Since the current recovery began in 2009, all economic gains have gone to the top 10 percent. The bottom 90 percent has lost ground.

We’re in the first economic upturn on record in which 90 percent of Americans have become worse off.

Why did the playing field start to tilt against the middle class in the Reagan recovery, and why has it tilted further ever since?

Don’t blame globalization. Other advanced nations facing the same global competition have managed to preserve middle class wages. Germany’s median wage is now higher than America’s.

One factor here has been a sharp decline in union membership. In the mid 1970s, 25 percent of the private-sector workforce was unionized.

Then came the Reagan revolution. By the end of the 1980s, only 17 percent of the private workforce was unionized. Today, fewer than 7 percent of the nation’s private-sector workers belong to a union.

This means most workers no longer have the bargaining power to get a share of the gains from growth.**

Source: Robert Reich on What's Really Destroying the American Middle Class

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.

No, it makes literally no sense. The only reason you're even advocating this creed of failure is because you don't understand the Great Depression. Policies like these would only damage the economy, like the Great Depression, and cause businesses to leave for countries with an economic system that makes sense.

I found an article regarding the causes of the great depression:
Top 5 Causes of the Great Depression

Worker owned companies certainly wasn't one of the factors. Personally, I think the most important factor was the failure of over 9000 banks. The story of why that happened is a good one:
Banking Panics of 1930 and 1931 - A detailed essay on an important event in the history of the Federal Reserve.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My source was google. That being said, I found that it was a pretty short explanation of communism, and it certainly wasn't comparing communism to socialism. So I found an article that does:
**Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Sometimes, the two are used interchangeably, though they are quite different. In theory, socialism and communism sound appealing, with everyone doing their share and working together to provide for the greater good. Each utilizes a planned production schedule to ensure the needs of all community members are met. They are utopian economic structures that some countries have tried; however, most have failed or become dictatorships, making reform nearly impossible.

In a communist society everything is owned by the working class and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy and poor classes. Instead, all are equal. Production from the community is distributed based upon need, not by effort or amount of work. It is expected that basic needs for each worker are met by the community, and there is no more to be obtained through working more than what is required. For example, if a worker puts in more time at work, he sees no additional reward, and production is minimally affected. The worker receives the same stipend and ration as before. Therefore, this type of economy often results in poor production, mass poverty and little advancement. This occurred in the 1980s to the Soviet Union when poverty became so widespread, and rebellions and revolutions caused a dissolution of the nation.

Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.

Both communism and socialism are near opposites of capitalism, with no private ownership and class equality. In capitalism, reward comes naturally without limitation to workers who exceed the normal minimums. When there is excess production, the owner can freely keep it, and he has no obligations to share his spoils with anyone else. A capitalist environment facilitates competition, and the result is unlimited advancement opportunity.

In modern society, many countries have adopted pieces of socialism into their economic and political policies. For example, in the United Kingdom, markets are allowed to fluctuate rather freely, and workers have unlimited earning potential based on their work. However, basic needs like healthcare are provided to everyone regardless of time or effort in their work. The welfare programs like food stamps in the United States are also forms of socialist policies that fit into an otherwise capitalist society.**

Source: What is the difference between communism and socialism? | Investopedia

You have certainly -asserted- that Russia was never Communist, but you haven't proven it. Tell me, why was the only allowed party in the Soviet Union the Communist party, instead of, say, the Socialist party?

You linked Wikipedia for your definition of Socialism, surely you can't refute the same source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is right to some extent, those are differences between Communism and Socialism. He also cites problems with them, which you conveniently ignore.

I think you can almost see the problem, but not quite. Like many on the right side of politics, you blame the government for what troubles society, not realizing who is controlling said government; namely, the corporations. I can certainly agree that a larger government controlled by corporations is not the solution. The solution is to stop allowing corporations to bribe their way into power, by overturning court decisions such as Citizens United. Here's a trailer of "Inside Job" by Sony Pictures, a documentary on what caused the economic crash of 2008:

That is A solution, but what you're ignoring is that whether legally or illegally, a corporation will always be able to influence a politician, and creating a larger and more powerful government only makes it that much worse. Furthermore, it doesn't take a corporation to create a corrupt government. With such a powerful government, all it takes is one corrupt President. It really doesn't even take that, given the economic problems listed in your own article, and which I've been pointing out to you.

Government certainly played a role, looking the other way as Wall Street committed its financial crimes, but the documentary makes it clear -why- they looked the other way, namely that government officials are all but employed by Wall Street, and who wants to look too closely at what their employer is doing?

You're right, that is a major part of what's wrong with the United States, and I didn't deny that. The route of the problem is corrupt politicians, and that's why the government shouldn't be even more powerful. That's why the State Governments were more powerful than the Federal Governments, so it wasn't this easy.

Again, you almost have it right. You're right, federal aid -is- allowing businesses to pay the miserably low wages they pay many of their employees. But the solution isn't to take away said federal aid and watch working people starve to death. No, the solution is to have enough decently paid work out there that they don't have to be subsidizing people just so that they can survive. The question you might consider asking is, why isn't there enough money to pay these workers decent wages? It's not like the corporations are poor. I wonder how much you know about corporations in general. For instance, have you seen a documentary called "The Corporation"? As wikipedia attests, it "won the World Cinema Audience Award: Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival, 2004, along with a Special Jury Award at theInternational Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in 2003[citation needed] and 2004.[citation needed]; Genie Award – Documentary; TIFF – People’s Choice Award."

Source: The Corporation (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you haven't seen it and are interested, here's the trailer:

No, the solution is definitely to get rid of Federal Aid, the government shouldn't be stealing people's money and giving it to failures. If they weren't doing that, we'd have "living wages" to start with, and none of these issues would exist. What started it all was Socialist policies in the first place. Subsidies and Federal Aid are abominations that allow people to be lazy, and give people no drive to succeed. Without it, there's incentive, to succeed, not only for your livelihood, but so you can achieve your dreams. Before the government decided to start adopting this creed of failure, people could literally stroll into a building and start working that same day. Even claiming that people wouldn't be able to survive without it is inaccurate, there are programs that will get people interviews for jobs, show you how to write a resume, and get you prepared for said interviews. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The solution to 'poverty' isn't handing people money, it's helping them get jobs. If someone can't keep a job, then lack of money isn't the problem, it's lack of skill and work ethic.

This is not about 'babying' people. This is about ensuring their very survival.

Then they can get involved with the program that gets them a job, and the government should stop babying them, so businesses are more likely to hire people, and they can make "living wages" in the first place. Your solution is what's causing the problem in the first place.

I'm not a fan of the fast food industry, but so long as said industry is allowed to continue the way it is, then yes.

Allowing people to live a meaningless life flipping burgers would cause overpopulation of entrance level jobs, and lack of actual skilled workers in higher positions. Fewer people would go to college, and we'd likely eventually run out of people with college education.

Legalizing thievery is alive and well today, but it's not the people flipping burgers who are doing the thieving. It's the banks who are constantly devaluating the money supply, with its never ending creation of money by means of loans given to individuals and corporations.

I never disagreed that they should be broken up, but socialist policies would just make the problem worse, as I've detailed.

I see that you didn't answer my question on thieves. Do you think it's fine if they roam free?

I did answer your question, I pointed out that Socialism would allow the government to act as thieves. You'd be attempting, and failing, to stop 'thievery' by the banks by replacing them with government thievery.

No, in my view, the unions/executives dichotomy is not the best system. With worker owned companies, there is no union/executive dichotomy. Or, put another way, the union -owns- the company. There could be executives, but they would also be part of the union. The union, in a very real sense, would be the company. If the company does badly, so does everyone in the company. Conversely, if the company does well, so does everyone in the company.

That's even worse. They are bullying the company by being part of the upper management instead of bullying them as employees. Unions are already effected if the company fails, so all it needs to do is stay afloat enough to pay them, not succeed. That also still takes control away from the actual owners, which would still cause the business to leave. Businesses are owned by the people that own them because they have qualifications in that department, you're advocating allowing unqualified people to own those businesses.

Ah, you're talking about CNN, though, not The Huffington Post.

I haven't seen evidence of that.

Then you obviously haven't paid attention to both, just one or the other. It's all just Liberal garble that the Establishment wants to feed you.

Yes, good administrators are needed, but not the fat cats just looking to pad their own bottom line. Here's why:

**
The real job creators are not CEOs or corporations or wealthy investors. The job creators are members of America’s vast middle class and the poor, whose purchases cause businesses to expand and invest.

Then go apply for a job from a poor person.

I also already told you that the employees feed the business' expansion, and that's why they pay them what's needed by default.

Consumer spending has grown more slowly in this recovery than in any previous one because consumers don’t have enough money to buy.

You can thank socialist policies for that. I already explained why.

All the economic gains have been going to the top.

Because the government is too powerful and has been stifling competition. Something that would happen even more under a Socialist system.

Don’t blame globalization. Other advanced nations facing the same global competition have managed to preserve middle class wages. Germany’s median wage is now higher than America’s.

Through unionism, and their production and overall economy are garbage compared to ours.

One factor here has been a sharp decline in union membership. In the mid 1970s, 25 percent of the private-sector workforce was unionized.

Because Unionism means minimal work, maximum pay. It's what happens when the employees can bully the employer.

This means most workers no longer have the bargaining power to get a share of the gains from growth.**

Capitalism regulates itself, Unions aren't needed at all, and neither is Socialism. They don't need to 'bargain', because businesses will pay them enough to live on, because it's what allows businesses to expand.

Source: Robert Reich on What's Really Destroying the American Middle Class

http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-whats-really-destroying-american-middle-class
Oh, that's the same loon you quoted before, no wonder the article was devoid of facts or logic.

I found an article regarding the causes of the great depression:
Top 5 Causes of the Great Depression

Worker owned companies certainly wasn't one of the factors. Personally, I think the most important factor was the failure of over 9000 banks. The story of why that happened is a good one:
Banking Panics of 1930 and 1931 - A detailed essay on an important event in the history of the Federal Reserve.

The government caused the domino effect that caused the Depression in the first place, when they attempted to artificially inflate our currency. FDR then unionized all of America, set minimum wages, set prices, and generally controlled businesses as a whole through the NIRA, which prevented recovery until World War 2. Through his Socialist policies, he caused and extended the Great Depression. News Flash; increasing the risk and cost of hiring employees and preventing competition will actually cause fewer people to hire and businesses to sell less, causing widespread poverty. Who'd have thought?

 

[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.

proved to whom? obviously you did not watch those two videos i posted earlier that nobody has ever been able to debunk that it was a CIA/mossad operation.lol

It's true that I haven't watched them, but I'm not the audience I had in mind anyway. You know I agree with you when it comes to the conspiracies mentioned. Even if -I- found them persuasive, it'd make no difference- it'd be preaching to the choir. This is why I asked the question, "proved to whom?"

Its only the people who WONT watch them that it hasnt been proved to.hee hee.

I've tried to watch documentaries from those who believe certain official stories that I don't believe. Put simply, I stop minutes in. Within a few minutes, they start building on premises that I don't agree with to begin with. I suspect that those who believe the official story would have the same issues with documentaries that you or I would watch on these subjects. I've also spent years trying to persuade those who disagree with me on various subjects that their beliefs are mistaken. My success rate hasn't exactly been stellar. I find that I can most easily persuade people who don't post in online forums at all as far as I know- family, friends.

As i have said to you many times before,I was at one time as guilty as you were being obsessed over 9/11 same as you so i chose the user name back then because of my obsession of it back then.

I disagree that I'm "obsessed" with discussing it.

I moved on though and realised it is just like the JFK assassination,done and over with with no chance of the real killers being brought to justice

How do you know that there's no chance of the real killers being brought to justice in the case of 9/11? It hasn't even been 15 years since it happened.

If i was planning on staying here another ten years like I almost have been posting i WOULD change it but since i only plan to stay a couple more years at the most ,i figure its not worth the trouble.

Alright.

 

[phoenyx]

Interesting. I understand that the prohibitions on certain drugs got its debut through the ATF, which was originally established to control Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. What are your views on that?

The BATF (now, if I'm not mistaken, rolled into the DHS) is an agency that stood as a monument to government overreach and usurpation.

Despite its full name being the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, its acronym is apparently just ATF and their agent badges also just have ATF on them:

Wikipedia itself sometimes calls it BATF though, it's like they can't make up their mind -.-... Wikipedia makes no mention of it being absorbed into DHS on its page:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The federal government only briefly ever had any authority over alcohol, from the time the Eighteenth Amendment took effect until it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. The federal government has never had any legitimate authority with regard to tobacco. And the Second Amendment explicitly denies to all government, any authority regarding firearms.

The BATF has not existed for any purpose other than to overtly violate the Constitution.

As far as drug abuse, this is none of the federal government's business, either. The point demonstrated by the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments was that in order for the federal government to have authority over alcohol, the Constitution had to be amended to give it that authority, and then later, amended again to take that authority back from them. If we want there to be any national policy regarding drug abuse, then we need to amend the Constitution to give that authority to the federal government, just as it took the Eighteenth Amendment to give the federal government authority to regulate alcohol.

Sounds good to me .

I think there are definitely some things where it makes sense for federal governments to regulate things; I think the FBI makes sense, at least in concept. Similarly, I think it makes sense for the Federal government to build roads and bridges. Of course, the regulation should be fair. Tell me, what do you think of the "Federal" reserve?

I'll admit that I don't really understand the Federal Reserve, and how it plays into our economic system. There's probably a good chance that if I did, I'd find it to be Constitutionally illegitimate.

Agreed. The previous incarnation of the Federal Reserve was killed off by President Andrew Jackson. Unfortunately, prominent business tycoons at the dawn of the 20th century persuaded Congress to pass it into law, which happened in 1913. Personally, I think the best short explanation of the Federal Reserve can be found in a 45 minute documentary titled "Money as Debt", the trailer of which can be seen here:

As for anything that we think it makes sense for the federal government to control, my answer is the same—if the Constitution doesn't already explicitly delegate it to the federal government, then the federal government has no authority to touch it until and unless we amend the Constitution to give it that authority.

Makes sense.

 

[phoenyx]

My source was google. That being said, I found that it was a pretty short explanation of communism, and it certainly wasn't comparing communism to socialism. So I found an article that does:
**Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Sometimes, the two are used interchangeably, though they are quite different. In theory, socialism and communism sound appealing, with everyone doing their share and working together to provide for the greater good. Each utilizes a planned production schedule to ensure the needs of all community members are met. They are utopian economic structures that some countries have tried; however, most have failed or become dictatorships, making reform nearly impossible.

In a communist society everything is owned by the working class and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy and poor classes. Instead, all are equal. Production from the community is distributed based upon need, not by effort or amount of work. It is expected that basic needs for each worker are met by the community, and there is no more to be obtained through working more than what is required. For example, if a worker puts in more time at work, he sees no additional reward, and production is minimally affected. The worker receives the same stipend and ration as before. Therefore, this type of economy often results in poor production, mass poverty and little advancement. This occurred in the 1980s to the Soviet Union when poverty became so widespread, and rebellions and revolutions caused a dissolution of the nation.

Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.

Both communism and socialism are near opposites of capitalism, with no private ownership and class equality. In capitalism, reward comes naturally without limitation to workers who exceed the normal minimums. When there is excess production, the owner can freely keep it, and he has no obligations to share his spoils with anyone else. A capitalist environment facilitates competition, and the result is unlimited advancement opportunity.

In modern society, many countries have adopted pieces of socialism into their economic and political policies. For example, in the United Kingdom, markets are allowed to fluctuate rather freely, and workers have unlimited earning potential based on their work. However, basic needs like healthcare are provided to everyone regardless of time or effort in their work. The welfare programs like food stamps in the United States are also forms of socialist policies that fit into an otherwise capitalist society.**

Source: What is the difference between communism and socialism? | Investopedia

You have certainly -asserted- that Russia was never Communist, but you haven't proven it. Tell me, why was the only allowed party in the Soviet Union the Communist party, instead of, say, the Socialist party?

You linked Wikipedia for your definition of Socialism, surely you can't refute the same source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is right to some extent, those are differences between Communism and Socialism. He also cites problems with them, which you conveniently ignore.

I don't -always- agree with wikipedia, but you just putting up its Communism article means I don't have to- you haven't shown that it differs from the above essay on the difference between communism and socialism. I'm glad you agree that the author of Investopedia's article is "right to some extent". For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the author is a man, like the audio clip. Do you believe he has made any mistakes? I also agree that he cites problems with both communism -and- socialism. I don't support communism, so we don't need to look at that one. His criticism of socialism makes sense:
**Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.**

The thing is, Bernie is not advocating that kind of socialism. Bernie would state that he's a democratic socialist. An article in Forbes magazine from a European author named Tim Worstall states that Bernie is not actually a democratic socialist, or a socialist at all, but a social democrat, and that that can be a good thing, if done right. He doesn't think that Bernie could have done it right, but I think he was being overly pessimistic. Here's his stated reason why he doesn't believe Bernie could have pulled it off:
**But the reason I really think social democracy won’t work in the U.S. is because people don’t understand what it is that makes those Nordics tick in an economic sense. They don’t do it, as Bernie seems to think can be done, by taxing the heck out of the rich to pay for everything. Instead they tax everyone through a VAT to pay for everything. Their tax systems are very much less progressive than that of the U.S., especially at the federal level. The only U.S. commentator I’ve seen actually get this is Lane Kenworthy, which is exactly why he proposes a VAT for the U.S., to raise 10% of GDP, in order to pay for those wonderfully socially democratic programs.

The second point is that the Nordics are notably more free market than the U.S. Whether you use the Fraseror the Heritage rankings this is so.**

I'm not so sure that the rich couldn't be taxed more. The U.S. has actually been taxing the rich less and less for decades. As to his other point, it's not that hard to understand what makes it work for Nordics. He mentions provides a good clue in his article:
**I think there’s reasons that it won’t work, one of them simply being geography. The U.S. is just too large a place to be shipping 15% (another 15%!) of GDP off to Washington DC for it then to be redistributed in nice things from the bureaucrats. There really are good reasons why Denmark does much of this at the commune level, a grouping of as few as 10,000 people.**

I think this is really key. Like the author, I don't think the solution is in the Federal government getting all this income for it to them redistribute back. I think the solution is to have local businesses owned by the workers who work in them. He also gives a nod to credit unions:
**A Credit Union is a socialist organization (it’s usually owned collectively by the depositors) and I know of no examples of such leading to people getting rich precisely because that organization must compete in the market.**

I'll respond to more of your post in a bit, I'm thinking it's better to break up such a large post into pieces...

 

[phoenyx]

I think you can almost see the problem, but not quite. Like many on the right side of politics, you blame the government for what troubles society, not realizing who is controlling said government; namely, the corporations. I can certainly agree that a larger government controlled by corporations is not the solution. The solution is to stop allowing corporations to bribe their way into power, by overturning court decisions such as Citizens United. Here's a trailer of "Inside Job" by Sony Pictures, a documentary on what caused the economic crash of 2008:

That is A solution, but what you're ignoring is that whether legally or illegally, a corporation will always be able to influence a politician, and creating a larger and more powerful government only makes it that much worse. Furthermore, it doesn't take a corporation to create a corrupt government. With such a powerful government, all it takes is one corrupt President. It really doesn't even take that, given the economic problems listed in your own article, and which I've been pointing out to you.

I certainly believe that the U.S. government's budget should take some massive cuts. The U.S. spent almost $600 billion dollars last year in its military budget. China came a distant second at $145 billion, Saudia Arabia came third at $88 billion, and Russia only spent a little less then $66 billion. Despite this, I think most would agree that Russia is the U.S.'s primary military opponent, not China.

Source: List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[phoenyx]

Government certainly played a role, looking the other way as Wall Street committed its financial crimes, but the documentary makes it clear -why- they looked the other way, namely that government officials are all but employed by Wall Street, and who wants to look too closely at what their employer is doing?

You're right, that is a major part of what's wrong with the United States, and I didn't deny that. The route of the problem is corrupt politicians, and that's why the government shouldn't be even more powerful. That's why the State Governments were more powerful than the Federal Governments, so it wasn't this easy.

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

Again, you almost have it right. You're right, federal aid -is- allowing businesses to pay the miserably low wages they pay many of their employees. But the solution isn't to take away said federal aid and watch working people starve to death. No, the solution is to have enough decently paid work out there that they don't have to be subsidizing people just so that they can survive. The question you might consider asking is, why isn't there enough money to pay these workers decent wages? It's not like the corporations are poor. I wonder how much you know about corporations in general. For instance, have you seen a documentary called "The Corporation"? As wikipedia attests, it "won the World Cinema Audience Award: Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival, 2004, along with a Special Jury Award at theInternational Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) in 2003[citation needed] and 2004.[citation needed]; Genie Award – Documentary; TIFF – People’s Choice Award."

Source: The Corporation (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you haven't seen it and are interested, here's the trailer:

No, the solution is definitely to get rid of Federal Aid, the government shouldn't be stealing people's money and giving it to failures.

So people are failures for taking the only jobs available to them? You think most people -want- to work at a Walmart or a fast food chain? But there's another point that I see you're not addressing- what happens when Federal Aid is cut off? You really want to see the U.S. turn into a third world country, starving children and all?

If they weren't doing that, we'd have "living wages" to start with

Would we? I think you should look to the third world for what happens to those living in capitalistic societies without federal aid.

 

[phoenyx]

What started it all was Socialist policies in the first place. Subsidies and Federal Aid are abominations that allow people to be lazy, and give people no drive to succeed.

I strongly disagree with that, and once again ask you to consider how the poor fair in countries that don't have subsidies and federal aid: people die, many of them children. I found an article the addresses your viewpoint, that subsidies make people 'lazy'. It doesn't really get into the 'lazy' bit, but it does say that people generally can't get out of poverty without help:
Does welfare provide assistance or encourage laziness?

Without it, there's incentive, to succeed, not only for your livelihood, but so you can achieve your dreams.

Tell that to the starving africans who also receive no federal aid.

Before the government decided to start adopting this creed of failure, people could literally stroll into a building and start working that same day.

Not sure when this time allegedly was, but today, getting a job is considerably more difficult then that. Getting a decently paid one with enough hours is even harder. Put simply, a great many people simply can't find these types of jobs anymore.

Even claiming that people wouldn't be able to survive without it is inaccurate, there are programs that will get people interviews for jobs, show you how to write a resume, and get you prepared for said interviews.

Yes, there are. That doesn't mean that those who are on those programs all -get- jobs, let alone jobs that could actually fully support them. Prove that those who receive federal aid wouldn't be starving without it, and you'd have a case.

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

I am very fond of that line myself. But the fact of the matter is, most people can't be fishermen today. It used to be that a lot more americans were farmers, which is close. But ever since the industrialization of agriculture, there's been a mass exodus of farming jobs, even as the quality of our food has taken a nose dive due to those same industrial farming practices.

The solution to 'poverty' isn't handing people money, it's helping them get jobs. If someone can't keep a job, then lack of money isn't the problem, it's lack of skill and work ethic.

Have you taken a look at the job market out there? A lot of them are positively horrendous. I think it can easily be argued that someone with strong ethics would rather die of starvation then take them. Most people try to get jobs anyway, though. This doesn't mean that they all succeed, are able to keep them, or that those jobs pay all the bills. Take a look at this tragedy of someone trying to make due by holding 4 part time jobs:
http://gawker.com/woman-working-four-part-time-jobs-dies-in-car-while-try-1627956779

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't -always- agree with wikipedia, but you just putting up its Communism article means I don't have to- you haven't shown that it differs from the above essay on the difference between communism and socialism.

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"
It does specify beyond the article, and it does say there's an absence of government. Did you even read it? Did you think that even with the absence of social classes, it would keep the politicians, who are considered a social class? It would be trying to get rid of any form of power, but would keep political power... because? Just because? That would go against the very goal of the social structure, that being to make everyone equal. Of course there's no government in Communism, because then there would be people that are 'more equal than others'.

I'm glad you agree that the author of Investopedia's article is "right to some extent". For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the author is a man, like the audio clip. Do you believe he has made any mistakes? I also agree that he cites problems with both communism -and- socialism. I don't support communism, so we don't need to look at that one. His criticism of socialism makes sense:
**Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.**

He made a mistake when defining Communism, as I pointed out. He also neglected to point out every flaw, but you'd likely ignore that.

The thing is, Bernie is not advocating that kind of socialism. Bernie would state that he's a democratic socialist. An article in Forbes magazine from a European author named Tim Worstall states that Bernie is not actually a democratic socialist, or a socialist at all, but a social democrat, and that that can be a good thing, if done right. He doesn't think that Bernie could have done it right, but I think he was being overly pessimistic. Here's his stated reason why he doesn't believe Bernie could have pulled it off:
**But the reason I really think social democracy won’t work in the U.S. is because people don’t understand what it is that makes those Nordics tick in an economic sense. They don’t do it, as Bernie seems to think can be done, by taxing the heck out of the rich to pay for everything. Instead they tax everyone through a VAT to pay for everything. Their tax systems are very much less progressive than that of the U.S., especially at the federal level. The only U.S. commentator I’ve seen actually get this is Lane Kenworthy, which is exactly why he proposes a VAT for the U.S., to raise 10% of GDP, in order to pay for those wonderfully socially democratic programs.

The second point is that the Nordics are notably more free market than the U.S. Whether you use the Fraseror the Heritage rankings this is so.**

Encouraging Unionism is not 'free market', and as explained, those social programs are the biggest part of the problem. Raising minimum wage, again, would not solve it.

I'm not so sure that the rich couldn't be taxed more. The U.S. has actually been taxing the rich less and less for decades. As to his other point, it's not that hard to understand what makes it work for Nordics. He mentions provides a good clue in his article:
**I think there’s reasons that it won’t work, one of them simply being geography. The U.S. is just too large a place to be shipping 15% (another 15%!) of GDP off to Washington DC for it then to be redistributed in nice things from the bureaucrats. There really are good reasons why Denmark does much of this at the commune level, a grouping of as few as 10,000 people.**

At this point, from the first sentence, I get the feeling you just have wealth envy. What makes you think that the business owners shouldn't keep their money? They earned it, and they use it to expand and hire people, that keeps the economy working, and that's assuming the whole "Tax the rich to fund a bunch of regressive social programs" thing works. It doesn't. It chases businesses into other, less regressive countries, and if they don't leave, they just get rid of employees, positions, increase cost of living, or any combination of those. Nations need businesses, so this idea is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

You're also assuming the 'Nordics' have a system that works, and they don't. They have either massive tax rates, or massive amounts of Unions, which drive their GDP up, or their household income up. They don't actually have a good economy, and really, their system will collapse once people get sick of carrying the lazy on their backs.

I think this is really key. Like the author, I don't think the solution is in the Federal government getting all this income for it to them redistribute back. I think the solution is to have local businesses owned by the workers who work in them. He also gives a nod to credit unions:
**A Credit Union is a socialist organization (it’s usually owned collectively by the depositors) and I know of no examples of such leading to people getting rich precisely because that organization must compete in the market.**

I'll respond to more of your post in a bit, I'm thinking it's better to break up such a large post into pieces...

I already explained why workers owning the business won't work. Tired of repeating myself already.

I certainly believe that the U.S. government's budget should take some massive cuts. The U.S. spent almost $600 billion dollars last year in its military budget. China came a distant second at $145 billion, Saudia Arabia came third at $88 billion, and Russia only spent a little less then $66 billion. Despite this, I think most would agree that Russia is the U.S.'s primary military opponent, not China.

Source: List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have 160 worthless government agencies, and regressive government programs out the wazu, and you want to cut defense? Well, I suppose if the United States is conquered, we wouldn't have any more Regressives demanding that business owners be forced to give their money to lazy people.

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition? They'd have to do it at the state level in each state, and that process would be far less widespread, and people would be able to move away from the states to avoid the impact. When that happens, those businesses would lose consumers because of their tactics, and there would be far less incentive to even try.

So people are failures for taking the only jobs available to them? You think most people -want- to work at a Walmart or a fast food chain? But there's another point that I see you're not addressing- what happens when Federal Aid is cut off? You really want to see the U.S. turn into a third world country, starving children and all?

That wouldn't turn the US into a third world country, that thought process is laughable. Without regulations, there would be so many jobs, businesses would never have enough employees. If anything, removing Federal Aid would cause businesses to pay their employees more, and cause them to hire more employees and expand faster. Federal Aid is a waste of taxpayer money. Even the few people who actually end up on the street would still be fine, because food pantries exist, and there are, again, programs that show people how to write resumes and get them interviews on their behalf. As I explained before, the solution is to get people jobs, not to give them money. AGAIN, if Regressives understood economics, they wouldn't be Regressives.

I strongly disagree with that, and once again ask you to consider how the poor fair in countries that don't have subsidies and federal aid: people die, many of them children. I found an article the addresses your viewpoint, that subsidies make people 'lazy'. It doesn't really get into the 'lazy' bit, but it does say that people generally can't get out of poverty without help:
Does welfare provide assistance or encourage laziness?

Refer to previous paragraph. Without Regressive policies destroying the economy, there are far more than enough jobs for everyone to be able to get one. There are programs that get people interviews on their behalf, and those that can't keep, or find another, job, then they have only themselves to blame.

Tell that to the starving africans who also receive no federal aid.

Africa has a lot of problems, and lack of Federal Aid is not one of them. Having Federal Aid would not suddenly make Africa not garbage.

Not sure when this time allegedly was, but today, getting a job is considerably more difficult then that. Getting a decently paid one with enough hours is even harder. Put simply, a great many people simply can't find these types of jobs anymore.

I am very fond of that line myself. But the fact of the matter is, most people can't be fishermen today. It used to be that a lot more americans were farmers, which is close. But ever since the industrialization of agriculture, there's been a mass exodus of farming jobs, even as the quality of our food has taken a nose dive due to those same industrial farming practices.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency. See upper paragraph. Tired of repeating myself.

That was a metaphor...

Have you taken a look at the job market out there? A lot of them are positively horrendous. I think it can easily be argued that someone with strong ethics would rather die of starvation then take them. Most people try to get jobs anyway, though. This doesn't mean that they all succeed, are able to keep them, or that those jobs pay all the bills. Take a look at this tragedy of someone trying to make due by holding 4 part time jobs:

http://gawker.com/woman-working-four-part-time-jobs-dies-in-car-while-try-1627956779

You can thank Obama's Regressive policies for people being unable to work full time. Government regulation is, again, the route of the problem. Also see upper paragraphs on Federal Aid, which is also at the route of the problem.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.

The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.

They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.

thinks for the biggest lie of the whole day.

obviously you have never seen a controlled demolition before.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

proved to whom? obviously you did not watch those two videos i posted earlier that nobody has ever been able to debunk that it was a CIA/mossad operation.lol

It's true that I haven't watched them, but I'm not the audience I had in mind anyway. You know I agree with you when it comes to the conspiracies mentioned. Even if -I- found them persuasive, it'd make no difference- it'd be preaching to the choir. This is why I asked the question, "proved to whom?"

Its only the people who WONT watch them that it hasnt been proved to.hee hee.

I've tried to watch documentaries from those who believe certain official stories that I don't believe. Put simply, I stop minutes in. Within a few minutes, they start building on premises that I don't agree with to begin with. I suspect that those who believe the official story would have the same issues with documentaries that you or I would watch on these subjects. I've also spent years trying to persuade those who disagree with me on various subjects that their beliefs are mistaken. My success rate hasn't exactly been stellar. I find that I can most easily persuade people who don't post in online forums at all as far as I know- family, friends.

As i have said to you many times before,I was at one time as guilty as you were being obsessed over 9/11 same as you so i chose the user name back then because of my obsession of it back then.

I disagree that I'm "obsessed" with discussing it.

I moved on though and realised it is just like the JFK assassination,done and over with with no chance of the real killers being brought to justice

How do you know that there's no chance of the real killers being brought to justice in the case of 9/11? It hasn't even been 15 years since it happened.

If i was planning on staying here another ten years like I almost have been posting i WOULD change it but since i only plan to stay a couple more years at the most ,i figure its not worth the trouble.

Alright.

In a little over a month from now it will be 15 years and come on,politicians commit crimes everyday that we go to jail for INCLUDING murder yet you think all of a sudden that will stop and politicians will start getting held accountable for their crimes?
dream on charlie.

Look at waco,look at oklahoma city,crimes that Clinton was involved up to his ears in during the 90's. BOTH of those crimes where murdererer americans was over 20 years ago and yet he is STILL free as a bird.wake up to reality dude.your dreaming.

 

[phoenyx]

This is not about 'babying' people. This is about ensuring their very survival.

Then they can get involved with the program that gets them a job

I think you're way too optimistic as to the odds of getting a job. And then there are those who can't get a regular job (or hold it) for various reasons.

and the government should stop babying them, so businesses are more likely to hire people, and they can make "living wages" in the first place. Your solution is what's causing the problem in the first place.

Your solution is already enacted in various third world countries. Here are the results:

I'm not a fan of the fast food industry, but so long as said industry is allowed to continue the way it is, then yes.

Allowing people to live a meaningless life flipping burgers would cause overpopulation of entrance level jobs, and lack of actual skilled workers in higher positions. Fewer people would go to college, and we'd likely eventually run out of people with college education.

You really don't know, do you?
**
Poor Sally. She has spent tens of thousands of dollars and four long years to get her college degree and has $26,000 in student loans to pay off, yet she can’t find a job that puts her degree to good use. Sally and her parents may be asking whether college was “worth it.”

Sally epitomizes many of her fellow college graduates who wonder why college graduates can’t find good jobs.

The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally’s plight.

One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.

Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.

Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.**

Source: Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree | Washington Post

 

[Muhammed]

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.

1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.

The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.

They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.

thinks for the biggest lie of the whole day.

obviously you have never seen a controlled demolition before.

I bet I've done a hell of a lot more demolition work than you.

As soon as I saw a plane hit that tower I knew it was coming down.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Believing that maximum government control is the key to prosperity and freedom.

That's just nuts