Removal of all Socialism in the US!

[Guard Dog]

Once again, I have no desire to get drawn into this discussion, but I do want to throw this article out there for you guys too look over. It came out this morning and is dead on topic for this thread: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ter_104685.html

[Killian Kalthorne]

What we need to do is stop spending so much money, stop cutting taxes, and pay off the national debt, and stop having a deficit all the time. We also need to become more self sufficient that way we don't have a need to deal with our enemies economically. If we become self sufficient enough we can tell the Chinese to bugger off.

[Walsingham]

What we need to do is stop spending so much money, stop cutting taxes, and pay off the national debt, and stop having a deficit all the time. We also need to become more self sufficient that way we don't have a need to deal with our enemies economically. If we become self sufficient enough we can tell the Chinese to bugger off.

 

Sando, you can't BE self-sufficient and still have a vibrant economy. While at the same time it's perfectly possible to do well and be interlinked with people. It's what you've been doing for years. Moreover, almost every large entity prefers to run on a big chunk of debt. Because money you have today is almost always worth more than money you can have tomorrow. It grows more money in the meantime. The aim is simply to make sure that happens. Rather than pissing it all up a tree.

 

Having said that your deficit is bananas.

 

I was actually talking about Sand's original post, BTW. I should have quoted. I'm afraid.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I rather be self sufficient than have a vibrant economy, Walsh. The US should only depend on itself. If it can't then it deserves to die. Same for any nation.

[lord of flies]

The actual solution to the problem of the United States is simple:

 

We must ban all lawyers and everyone who has ever held a high position in a large company from public office. By doing so, we get rid of all the parasites who take up public office and piss down our throats with their lies and amorality. Any reasonable, normal person who is approached with the figure of our national debt and told they're the one whose job it is to fix it would immediately begin to scramble to correct things. Politicians, being today little more than rich con men, instead deflect the problem into the indefinite future. Further, they look out for their own class interests (i.e. rich people interests), which removes one of the most obvious and viable sources of income.

I rather be self sufficient than have a vibrant economy, Walsh. The US should only depend on itself. If it can't then it deserves to die. Same for any nation.

Most nations do not have the natural resources to support a modern economy without imports.

[Trenitay]

I don't think China and Russia are real enemies.

 

Don't tell that loud, you make some people here cry

 

Define real enemy. Briefly.

 

Well, for us, I'd say that a real enemy is one who clearly has intent, motive and means to cause immediate harm to the U.S. and/or it's citizens. I just don't think Russia really wants to and China is loving its position.

[Walsingham]

I rather be self sufficient than have a vibrant economy, Walsh. The US should only depend on itself. If it can't then it deserves to die. Same for any nation.

 

I'm going to keep you in a bucket, like an unwell lobster.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Most nations do not have the natural resources to support a modern economy without imports.

 

Too bad, so sad. Maybe they shouldn't have overextended themselves to be "modernized." WHat the frak is so wonderful about being modernized, eh? Being modernized means greater pollution poisoning the environment, larger populations that can't sustain themselves, all so much useless piece of junk to was our limited time on this pathetic mudball of a planet.

 

Oh, yes. Being modernize is so frakin' grand.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I'm going to keep you in a bucket, like an unwell lobster.

 

Is it going to be a rusted gray metal bucket or a pink plastic bucket?

[Walsingham]

I'm going to keep you in a bucket, like an unwell lobster.

 

Is it going to be a rusted gray metal bucket or a pink plastic bucket?

 

Black HDPE. With a galvanised steel handle.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I'm going to keep you in a bucket, like an unwell lobster.

 

Is it going to be a rusted gray metal bucket or a pink plastic bucket?

 

Black HDPE. With a galvanised steel handle.

 

Sounds therapeutic.

[Guard Dog]

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise.

 

Which do you prefer?

[Killian Kalthorne]

A balance between the two.

[lord of flies]

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise.

 

Which do you prefer?

Maximum amount of care.

[Guard Dog]

A balance between the two.

Sand that was not an option. Assume the two are mutually exclusive (as in you cannot have a balance, you can have one or the other).

[Killian Kalthorne]

I like the middle ground. I like being the squished bug with the twitching antennae. If I had to pick one extreme over the other I pick maximum freedom.

[Guard Dog]

I'd prefer a maximum amount of freedom. It's my responsibility to take care of myself.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If you can't be free then why be alive in the first place?

[I want teh kotor 3]

I'd prefer a maximum amount of freedom. It's my responsibility to take care of myself.

 

This. Just in case you haven't figured that out yet.

[Orogun01]

If you can't be free then why be alive in the first place?

To win that freedom.

[lord of flies]

You did not say that it was freedom OR care; you said that it was the MAXIMUM amount of freedom or the MAXIMUM amount of care.

 

The problem is freedom is wishy-washy nothingness. Which is the more free society: one where I can ban customers from my bar for being black, or one where I can go to any bar I like in indifference to my skin tone? The two are mutually exclusive.

 

Whereas, care is something that can actually be identified and to a certain degree measured. People need things: food, water, shelter, friends, meaning, medical care, a retirement plan, etc. A society which gives them more of the things they need is therefore "more caring" and there's no mutually exclusive kinds of care.

[Walsingham]

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise.

 

Which do you prefer?

 

Sounds like Sand in his medicinal bucket.

 

I'm not sure which to choose. Neither sounds like it would suit me. On the one hand I rely on others a lot to fulfil key requirements like giving me medicines for all my failing body parts, and in turn work quite hard to help others. On the other hand I hate taking orders from anyone I don't both know and respect. On the other hand I ...

 

Look do I have to really choose between anarchy and maternal despotism?

[Guard Dog]

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise.

 

Which do you prefer?

 

Sounds like Sand in his medicinal bucket.

 

I'm not sure which to choose. Neither sounds like it would suit me. On the one hand I rely on others a lot to fulfil key requirements like giving me medicines for all my failing body parts, and in turn work quite hard to help others. On the other hand I hate taking orders from anyone I don't both know and respect. On the other hand I ...

 

Look do I have to really choose between anarchy and maternal despotism?

 

For the purposes of this discussion, yes. We are not planning a government here, just having a philisophical discussion. Isn't the question of degree of government control at the heart of all political questions? In the US it is. Which is better, a regimented society where everyone is equal, all needs are met, but at the expense of liberty, happiness, self awarement and enrichment, or a society where the government provides the barest minimum of service (border security and foreign relations only) and free market economics and personal responsibility are paramount?

[Hurlshort]

A balance between the two.

Sand that was not an option. Assume the two are mutually exclusive (as in you cannot have a balance, you can have one or the other).

 

But they are not mutually exclusive, and it feels more like a trap question than a philosophical one.

[Guard Dog]

Nevermind everyone. It is not a trap, just a question to establish where everyone was coming from, where their values were. Forget it. Like I said having that kind of discussion here is a waste of everyones time and will just devolve into a flame out sooner than later.