26 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCheer up, with a bit of practice, look on the bright side...
No. That is what YOU mean. You really must think people are stupid. Why did you try to put thoughts in their heads? Are you really that arrogant?
I think government is a farce. I think that people who need leaders are boobs.
You see the subtle difference between your inference and attempt at swaying people to your point as to my utterly rotten att ...[text shortened]... it. The bright side must have something going for it. Everyone always seeks it out. Don't they?
I got a giggle out of that one! best put down I've heard in years!
Now I am convinced you are thre reincarnation of Robert Heinlein!
I agree with you about Socialism in all its variants are Quixotic in their nature, expecting people to automatically jump forward a million years evolutionarily speaking and all of a sudden be so good they accept whatever the collective speaks. But what if the collective is wrong?
Won't that inevitably lead to dissent, which will disrupt any socialist society? At least Capitalism just lets folks duke it out....
Which doesn't mean capitalism is the best system either.
26 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteAny other cliches you have learned in your mighty educational process that you wish to pass on? Other than "trickle-down"?
On the contrary, capitalism is naive and socialism is realistic: if you want fantasy-island optimism, the trickle-down theory and the hidden hand of capitalism are classic examples.
Here is a puzzle for you... Who said about socialism "Wonderful theory. Wrong Species."
Edward O. Wilson who was an entomologist who specialized in ants.
Or...
SVW who was a ranter who specializes in chimps?
27 May 05
Well, at least you got it half-right.
No, I'm quite content with pointing out the ridiculously nineteenth century view of socialism you and quite a few people like you here still possess. Socialism is not "optimistic", and only a few strands of the tradition are utopian and Fourierist. Was Sorel an optimist? Were the guild socialists naive about the role of the state? The irony of your position is that you are transferring most of laissez-faire capitalism's vices onto socialism, because there isn't anything more naive and dewy-eyed than Reaganomics and Thatcherism. "Shareowning democracy", hahaha, those two were priceless.
27 May 05
Originally posted by AmauroteCool. and do you have any answer besides the "laissez-faire " french no nuts thingy?
Well, at least you got it half-right.
No, I'm quite content with pointing out the ridiculously nineteenth century view of socialism you and quite a few people like you here still possess. Socialism is not "optimistic", and only a few strands of the tradition are utopian and Fourierist. Was Sorel an optimist? Were the guild socialists naive about the r ...[text shortened]... d than Reaganomics and Thatcherism. "Shareowning democracy", hahaha, those two were priceless.
Cool. You dared respond. Uncool. That you can't see the obvious.
Success of utopia depends upon the greed and will to retribution of the willing masses. Failure depends only upon human nature.
27 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOddly enough, I agree: I think the entire political programme of Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan was intensely utopian, and that was characterized by the re-interpretation of unfettered economic self-interest as a collective good. The irony is that their philosophy failed because people are more complex than any political philosophy, irrespective of whether that originates from the Left or Right, a convergence of individual and collective self-interest and the desire to be social animals, or chimps as you would put it. That is something most Republicans and Thatcherites will never understand, ironically, because they are the true heirs of the Fourierists of the 19th century. When people talked about "Thatcher's children", which was the mantra of the early 90s, there was more than a hint of euteknia in the air.
Success of utopia depends upon the greed and will to retribution of the willing masses. Failure depends only upon human nature.
But I repeat: as interesting as this tangent is, most socialists are not utopian. Quite the opposite, in fact.
27 May 05
Originally posted by Amaurotemost socialists are dumb asses from my experiences
Oddly enough, I agree: I think the entire political programme of Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan was intensely utopian, and that was characterized by the re-interpretation of unfettered economic self-interest as a collective good. The irony is that their philosophy failed because people are more complex than any political philosophy, irrespective of whether ...[text shortened]... as interesting as this tangent is, most socialists are not utopian. Quite the opposite, in fact.
27 May 05
Originally posted by RedmikeThe private donations by Americans make the US one of the most generous countries on earth...include that in your "Aid to developing countries" topic....🙄
What's this could to do with the subject of the thread?
The US gives one of the lowest GDP percentages of any developed country in foreign aid. And the paltry amount you do give is with strings.
If you value the 'freedom' to work for someone else's profit, then you've certainly been duped.
27 May 05
Originally posted by Amaurote.18% of our GNP
0.18% of GNP, apparently. Pathetic.
If the United States of America was one of your mates, you can bet your arse in jeopardy he'd be the one who always mysteriously ducks out to the bog whenever its time to ask whose round it is.
our GNP is 10945792 dollars
so we gave 1,970,242.56 $
that is such a small amount
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerActually the Cuban cigars have been in decline since they got rid of the people who actually knew what they were doing and sent them away. Dominican and Nicaragua cigars from smuggled seeds from Cuba in my opinion are much better and compare with the Cuban's pre Castro days. I buy Cuban's when I go into Mexico and they don't even compare to an RomeoyJulieta or a Punch Rum Cru.
Cuba has the best cigars. BTW, I'm serious about Michigan. After all, we already have a Canadian, socialist, female governor and a teachers union that guarantees your children will never be bothered with reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Experience true freedom from self as our Canadian, socialist, female governor lifts the burden of individuality from your aching shoulders.
28 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by scipio7777777The issue was generosity, not amount - not only is that figure incredibly mean-spirited viewed in proportion to wealth, but most of it is tied to aid, and nearly half of it goes to Israel, which the US government presumably defines as a Third World nation as a kind of existential acte gratuite.
.18% of our GNP
our GNP is 10945792 dollars
so we gave 1,970,242.56 $
that is such a small amount
In fact, if you define charity as the act of giving without seeking any kind of financial remuneration, the US figure is approximately .03%.
29 May 05
Originally posted by Amaurotewhere do you get these numbers from?
The issue was generosity, not amount - not only is that figure incredibly mean-spirited viewed in proportion to wealth, but most of it is tied to aid, and nearly half of it goes to Israel, which the US government presumably defines as a Third World nation as a kind of existential acte gratuite.
In fact, if you define charity as the act of giving without seeking any kind of financial remuneration, the US figure is approximately .03%.
and even so why should we give money to others? we earned it we should be able to keep it if we so deem