I Apologize for hating America so much
Mar 15, 2012 | 03:34 PM
#12
Pro Rider
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
From: Redneck Capital of the World
I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I like his foreign policy, and stance on drugs. However, he clings too much to a 200 year old document.
I believe frankly in Equality and Democracy. Gay rights shouldn't even be an "Issue", it should just be. There is nothing more dangerous than discrimination, it paves the way for envy, strife, and discontentment.
Income tax is robbery, but we can't do without it. Conservatives talk a lot about the robbery of income tax, but have they stopped and looked at what a "wage" really is? To put it frankly, wages are what a worker is entitled to after the surplus value he creates is stolen from him, in the name of profit. Wages are a greater robbery than taxes have ever been, especially considering the rich get the brunt of the tax burden.
I guess it looks to me that Ron Paul wants to jump back to 1787, before business owners were in a tacit. Too much has changed, and I, personally, am not content with the current way of things, and refuse to go backward.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, hope it's not too controversial.
I believe frankly in Equality and Democracy. Gay rights shouldn't even be an "Issue", it should just be. There is nothing more dangerous than discrimination, it paves the way for envy, strife, and discontentment.
Income tax is robbery, but we can't do without it. Conservatives talk a lot about the robbery of income tax, but have they stopped and looked at what a "wage" really is? To put it frankly, wages are what a worker is entitled to after the surplus value he creates is stolen from him, in the name of profit. Wages are a greater robbery than taxes have ever been, especially considering the rich get the brunt of the tax burden.
I guess it looks to me that Ron Paul wants to jump back to 1787, before business owners were in a tacit. Too much has changed, and I, personally, am not content with the current way of things, and refuse to go backward.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, hope it's not too controversial.
Ok..
homosexuality is an abomination... It is grossly disgusting and unnatural. You can say anything you want about how its a chemical imbalance or dig up an old picture and add your perversness to it....
homosexuality should not be an issue, correct, it should not exist. you guys may be talking good about canada, but there you can't even preach against the evils of homosexuality.
Yeah and i guess you could call me a clinger.. i cling to my religion, i cling to my guns, and i cling to the constitution, and i don't need the government to hold my hand. Thats why this ole countrys around, thats why shes here, thats what we fought for, and i'd be glad to fight for that again. That should be all of our attitudes.
If some little country needs a helping hand we ought to give it to them , but so far we've gone at it all wrong, and so have those little countrys.
All American Citizens should be treated equal.
If anyone is dissatisfied with America, the way it was won, with my ancestors, then get out, we don't want you here. And bub don't you ruin it for me.
My
.Have a nice day.
Mar 15, 2012 | 03:54 PM
#13
Range Rover
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Upstate NY
That sounded sort of vicious. You are aware that a number of animals (Aren't people animals?) display homosexual behavior? The bible is open to a huge amount of interpretation. So to quote it as an absolute such as you have, is dangerous as best.
You wouldn't punish the man who is short, simply for being short, would you? Why on Earth punish the homosexual, even with only rhetoric, for being born homosexual? What greater good does that serve? Even if you were to make the argument that it is a sin, I believe the Bible also mentions "Love the sinner, hate the sin". There should be no hate stemming from the Bible.
Homosexuals are Americans, they are not treated with equality. I can't actually think of much equality in the United States...
In any case, I'm excited to see criticism of my economic beliefs! It's always a bit of fun.
You wouldn't punish the man who is short, simply for being short, would you? Why on Earth punish the homosexual, even with only rhetoric, for being born homosexual? What greater good does that serve? Even if you were to make the argument that it is a sin, I believe the Bible also mentions "Love the sinner, hate the sin". There should be no hate stemming from the Bible.
Homosexuals are Americans, they are not treated with equality. I can't actually think of much equality in the United States...
In any case, I'm excited to see criticism of my economic beliefs! It's always a bit of fun.
Mar 15, 2012 | 03:58 PM
#14
Thread Starter
|
Shapeshifter Rider
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
From: Mishawaka,Indiana
Ok..
homosexuality is an abomination... It is grossly disgusting and unnatural. You can say anything you want about how its a chemical imbalance or dig up an old picture and add your perversness to it....
homosexuality should not be an issue, correct, it should not exist. you guys may be talking good about canada, but there you can't even preach against the evils of homosexuality.
Yeah and i guess you could call me a clinger.. i cling to my religion, i cling to my guns, and i cling to the constitution, and i don't need the government to hold my hand. Thats why this ole countrys around, thats why shes here, thats what we fought for, and i'd be glad to fight for that again. That should be all of our attitudes.
If some little country needs a helping hand we ought to give it to them , but so far we've gone at it all wrong, and so have those little countrys.
All American Citizens should be treated equal.
If anyone is dissatisfied with America, the way it was won, with my ancestors, then get out, we don't want you here. And bub don't you ruin it for me.
My.
Have a nice day.
homosexuality is an abomination... It is grossly disgusting and unnatural. You can say anything you want about how its a chemical imbalance or dig up an old picture and add your perversness to it....
homosexuality should not be an issue, correct, it should not exist. you guys may be talking good about canada, but there you can't even preach against the evils of homosexuality.
Yeah and i guess you could call me a clinger.. i cling to my religion, i cling to my guns, and i cling to the constitution, and i don't need the government to hold my hand. Thats why this ole countrys around, thats why shes here, thats what we fought for, and i'd be glad to fight for that again. That should be all of our attitudes.
If some little country needs a helping hand we ought to give it to them , but so far we've gone at it all wrong, and so have those little countrys.
All American Citizens should be treated equal.
If anyone is dissatisfied with America, the way it was won, with my ancestors, then get out, we don't want you here. And bub don't you ruin it for me.
My
.Have a nice day.
If you Cling to Religion and Guns as I do how can You NOT be dissatisfied with the state of America?
Mar 15, 2012 | 04:32 PM
#15
Extreme Pro Rider
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,224
Likes: 9
From: Texas
. amen brother!!!!!!bahaha, that's a good one!
Mar 15, 2012 | 09:46 PM
#18
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
If you argue homosexuality on the purely physical model, it's at best abnormal. If it was normal we would have died off as a species. Tab A is obviously created to go in Slot B to be simple about it.
Socially, because of the different make up of man and woman the best example of a moral code is to have both parts doing there part to create a whole person who can see both examples of parenting.
Biblically, it is called sin, that is an offense to the God of the Bible, including Jesus. Jesus loved the prostitute that was about to be stoned by the local Jews and told them, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". They all went away without throwing even a pebble. Then Jesus turned to the prostitute and said, "Where are your accusers?" She said, "They're all gone." "Neither do I condemn you. Now, go and leave your life of sin." He did not judge her on the spot and send her to hell but he did warn her which is the most loving thing you can do for someone who is sinning against God. You warn them about what God says and that they can escape His coming wrath. Loving a sinner is not saying to them, "Hey anything goes. Don't worry about it. God's love, love, love." But another part of God is he is just. He keeps His word. Every passage in the Bible dealing with homosexuality (the physical attraction and physical act of sexual relations between two people of the same sex) condemns it. Pure and simple. The wishy washy interpretation of sin and judgement and not warning someone in sin is kind of like seeing a friend about to drive his car off a cliff that will kill him and not doing anything about it. The loving thing is to do everything in your power to try to stop him. Not to make it easy.
Homosexual marriage is not what God instituted as the building blocks of society. Jesus said, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
What is abnormal should not be equated with something that God has instituted.
Socially, because of the different make up of man and woman the best example of a moral code is to have both parts doing there part to create a whole person who can see both examples of parenting.
Biblically, it is called sin, that is an offense to the God of the Bible, including Jesus. Jesus loved the prostitute that was about to be stoned by the local Jews and told them, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". They all went away without throwing even a pebble. Then Jesus turned to the prostitute and said, "Where are your accusers?" She said, "They're all gone." "Neither do I condemn you. Now, go and leave your life of sin." He did not judge her on the spot and send her to hell but he did warn her which is the most loving thing you can do for someone who is sinning against God. You warn them about what God says and that they can escape His coming wrath. Loving a sinner is not saying to them, "Hey anything goes. Don't worry about it. God's love, love, love." But another part of God is he is just. He keeps His word. Every passage in the Bible dealing with homosexuality (the physical attraction and physical act of sexual relations between two people of the same sex) condemns it. Pure and simple. The wishy washy interpretation of sin and judgement and not warning someone in sin is kind of like seeing a friend about to drive his car off a cliff that will kill him and not doing anything about it. The loving thing is to do everything in your power to try to stop him. Not to make it easy.
Homosexual marriage is not what God instituted as the building blocks of society. Jesus said, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
What is abnormal should not be equated with something that God has instituted.
Mar 15, 2012 | 10:05 PM
#19
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
Well I'm not much of a reformist, as I said I don't like the current way of things. I think every individual should have equal access to the luxuries, and necessities of life. I don't believe any form of exploitation should exist. The revolutionary changes I'd like to see are,
Workers' control of the means of production
Democratically planned economic system
End of the wage system
At a later point, removal of the money system
I realize this seems outlandish at first, I have yet to meet a person who didn't scoff at the idea at first.
Workers' control of the means of production means, in modern terms, cooperative ownership. Meaning the workers who operate a facility, be it a factory, office building, anything, have a democratic voice in the management of the facility. It's strange to me that we support democracy, but accept dictatorship at work.
This plays well into the democratic planning of an economy. When people hear of "Planned economy", they immediately think of failed countries like North Korea, or the USSR. Those were centrally planned economies, and they lacked one very important thing, the central bureaucracy didn't have an input for change. It couldn't take into account changes in demographic, changes in style, changes in eating habits, anything. Democratically planned means that workers form into regional councils, based on what industry they work for. An example would be "Detroit Auto Workers Council", which would vote an immediately recall-able delegate to a state wide Auto Workers Council, which would vote delegates to nation wide councils, etc. These councils would set production goals based on a realistic assessment of need, want, current stock, scarcity, etc. It would be bottom up. Instead of the elite business owners controlling what the economy, and business does, the workers who know best how to operate a facility will be in control of what is produced.
As I said before, a wage is simply a small percent of what a worker produces. An intermediary stage, workers would vote to set wages, or put away money for lean times. As this form of economy developed, the idea of money would become obsolete. In it's place would be free access. A working person would get what they need simply because it is necessity. Of course, I find it silly to significantly differentiate between need and want. Life isn't worth living without some kind of leisure, and we live on a planet rich with enough resources for everyone, it's just a matter of management.
Now free access sounds a lot like a handout, right? What would motivate someone to work? Well, the conditions of the modern laborer are such that they coerced into longer hours than preferred, in a job that may or may not suit them. The artisan of traditional economies built beautifully crafted goods, because the production of those goods were to his natural inclinations. Simply, he enjoyed to do what he did. There's no sense in the idea that people cannot do what they enjoy to do. Genetically, no two people are the same, so it makes sense that there is a natural variety built into the human spirit. People would work because it would be something they enjoyed to do. They wouldn't have to worry about feeding their family, or themselves. They would be free to pursue their most productive, enjoyable endeavor.
I don't believe bringing this about would be very easy, but certainly possible. I believe it to be the ideal projection of the human condition.
And again, thanks for entertaining this!
Workers' control of the means of production
Democratically planned economic system
End of the wage system
At a later point, removal of the money system
I realize this seems outlandish at first, I have yet to meet a person who didn't scoff at the idea at first.
Workers' control of the means of production means, in modern terms, cooperative ownership. Meaning the workers who operate a facility, be it a factory, office building, anything, have a democratic voice in the management of the facility. It's strange to me that we support democracy, but accept dictatorship at work.
This plays well into the democratic planning of an economy. When people hear of "Planned economy", they immediately think of failed countries like North Korea, or the USSR. Those were centrally planned economies, and they lacked one very important thing, the central bureaucracy didn't have an input for change. It couldn't take into account changes in demographic, changes in style, changes in eating habits, anything. Democratically planned means that workers form into regional councils, based on what industry they work for. An example would be "Detroit Auto Workers Council", which would vote an immediately recall-able delegate to a state wide Auto Workers Council, which would vote delegates to nation wide councils, etc. These councils would set production goals based on a realistic assessment of need, want, current stock, scarcity, etc. It would be bottom up. Instead of the elite business owners controlling what the economy, and business does, the workers who know best how to operate a facility will be in control of what is produced.
As I said before, a wage is simply a small percent of what a worker produces. An intermediary stage, workers would vote to set wages, or put away money for lean times. As this form of economy developed, the idea of money would become obsolete. In it's place would be free access. A working person would get what they need simply because it is necessity. Of course, I find it silly to significantly differentiate between need and want. Life isn't worth living without some kind of leisure, and we live on a planet rich with enough resources for everyone, it's just a matter of management.
Now free access sounds a lot like a handout, right? What would motivate someone to work? Well, the conditions of the modern laborer are such that they coerced into longer hours than preferred, in a job that may or may not suit them. The artisan of traditional economies built beautifully crafted goods, because the production of those goods were to his natural inclinations. Simply, he enjoyed to do what he did. There's no sense in the idea that people cannot do what they enjoy to do. Genetically, no two people are the same, so it makes sense that there is a natural variety built into the human spirit. People would work because it would be something they enjoyed to do. They wouldn't have to worry about feeding their family, or themselves. They would be free to pursue their most productive, enjoyable endeavor.
I don't believe bringing this about would be very easy, but certainly possible. I believe it to be the ideal projection of the human condition.
And again, thanks for entertaining this!
If you remove wages (the reward for your efforts) you will remove the impetus for trying to succeed. I started out delivering newspapers. From there, I washed dishes, pumped gas, flipped hamburgers, did shipping and receiving, got into construction, hurt my knees, and had to change my training. Did computer work until the bubble burst on dot.com jobs, and went back to construction. The more I applied myself the more I made. Right now, I'm homeschooling my son to give him the best chance of a good education so he can succeed. Do I think he'll make 100K before he's 25? I doubt it. He's going to have to find out what he does well and apply himself.
My brother in law, married a woman who had escaped Czechoslovakia when it was under communist rule. She often speaks of the wonders of socialism and communism. She stated it this way; "They pretended to pay us to work. We pretended to work." Again, if you remove the impetus or reward for labor you remove the desire to succeed. Someone who doesn't apply him or her self should not expect the family working 2 or 3 jobs to provide for them. God even said in the Bible, "If a man does not work he does not eat.""Another Scripture says, "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man."
Every attempt thus far of what you are describing has failed. The systems that have tried this are falling now as the countries like Greece realize someone's got to pay for all the handouts.
Mar 16, 2012 | 12:10 AM
#20
Range Rover
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Upstate NY
It's insulting to the Communists of history, and modern supporters, to call the State run Capitalist economies such as the USSR, or North Korea, Communist.
A wage is not a reward. Unless of course a reward could be equated to a robber breaking into your house, stealing everything you own and running out. Then, on his way out, you plead to him "Could I just have clothes for tomorrow?" so the robber throws you a pair of clothes. That pittance of what you created for society, that's your wage. Wage is robbery.
I tried to steer clear of the term "Communism", since it carries a lot of baggage with it... But since it has been brought up... As Marx stated it, Communism does not include a "State". There is no powerful government, moving around goods, and Redistributing them.
The objective, as far as labor is concerned, is to remove the necessity for reward. When I work on my ATV, or work on a friend's computer, I do it out of love for the job, not because I'll see some gratifying reward. There's no reason that jobs cannot be engaging, challenging, and firmly in line with a person's natural inclination. Laziness wouldn't exist, if the jobs people worked were tailored to themselves.
This has never been tried. In every "Communist" country (Really state Capitalist, as there were social classes), people who supported the form of radical democracy that I believe in were called Anarchists (Anarcho Communists is more fitting), and they were suppressed after the Bolshevik in Russia took hold. The difference between Anarchists, and Anarcho Communists is that Anarcho Communists believe that wealth is social.
As a sort of aside, it seems silly to me to put a value to a person's contribution to society. It is simple to determine a price, supply and demand. Money being removed from existence, price would have little usefulness. Value is an unknown. We value doctors more than factory floor workers, but can we really say that doctors are more important? It is certain that doctor's play an important role, saving lives. But, could they effectively do their jobs, if not for the factory floor workers bringing about all their medical implements, computers, and various pieces of technology? I don't believe so. Even if we argue that doctor's are more heavily educated, how do we quantify how many man-hours that eduction is worth, per human life saved? All of this is frankly, unknown. If value cannot be determined, and I have tried to establish that all wealth is social, it stands to reason that everyone should have equal, free access to the goods and leisure items required to live a happy life. Doctor's will not be in shortage, because people who join that career field, genuinely enjoy doing their jobs. Taking expensive education out of the equation simply removes a barrier to drawing great minds to a given career field.
As for the homosexual thing, the love the sinner part was because I felt TacticalRedneck's views on homosexuals were a bit hateful. Studies have shown that homosexuals are most probably born that way. With that established, you can't convince a homosexual to stop being homosexual, just as you can't make a short person tall.
A wage is not a reward. Unless of course a reward could be equated to a robber breaking into your house, stealing everything you own and running out. Then, on his way out, you plead to him "Could I just have clothes for tomorrow?" so the robber throws you a pair of clothes. That pittance of what you created for society, that's your wage. Wage is robbery.
I tried to steer clear of the term "Communism", since it carries a lot of baggage with it... But since it has been brought up... As Marx stated it, Communism does not include a "State". There is no powerful government, moving around goods, and Redistributing them.
The objective, as far as labor is concerned, is to remove the necessity for reward. When I work on my ATV, or work on a friend's computer, I do it out of love for the job, not because I'll see some gratifying reward. There's no reason that jobs cannot be engaging, challenging, and firmly in line with a person's natural inclination. Laziness wouldn't exist, if the jobs people worked were tailored to themselves.
This has never been tried. In every "Communist" country (Really state Capitalist, as there were social classes), people who supported the form of radical democracy that I believe in were called Anarchists (Anarcho Communists is more fitting), and they were suppressed after the Bolshevik in Russia took hold. The difference between Anarchists, and Anarcho Communists is that Anarcho Communists believe that wealth is social.
As a sort of aside, it seems silly to me to put a value to a person's contribution to society. It is simple to determine a price, supply and demand. Money being removed from existence, price would have little usefulness. Value is an unknown. We value doctors more than factory floor workers, but can we really say that doctors are more important? It is certain that doctor's play an important role, saving lives. But, could they effectively do their jobs, if not for the factory floor workers bringing about all their medical implements, computers, and various pieces of technology? I don't believe so. Even if we argue that doctor's are more heavily educated, how do we quantify how many man-hours that eduction is worth, per human life saved? All of this is frankly, unknown. If value cannot be determined, and I have tried to establish that all wealth is social, it stands to reason that everyone should have equal, free access to the goods and leisure items required to live a happy life. Doctor's will not be in shortage, because people who join that career field, genuinely enjoy doing their jobs. Taking expensive education out of the equation simply removes a barrier to drawing great minds to a given career field.
As for the homosexual thing, the love the sinner part was because I felt TacticalRedneck's views on homosexuals were a bit hateful. Studies have shown that homosexuals are most probably born that way. With that established, you can't convince a homosexual to stop being homosexual, just as you can't make a short person tall.