107 Hits
All Posts
ideally yes, but realistically that can not work 100%.
I'm not saying you have a great democrac or anything. but the aspects you named really are democratic. consensus being the term there.
And in the end you can't blame the system (completely) that most people only consider democrats and republicans.
makes me cherish the way democray is executed over here.
Do you not agree it'd be easily misrepresented as politically naïve for Obama to do that, potentially massively damaging?
Ignoring whether they are / have been a threat – do you think Obama acting in the hypothetical and completely ruling out ever launching a preemptive strike is wise?
You’re also muddling issues. I don’t consider Obama the ideal candidate either, but that doesn’t mean he’s not right on Iran.
Do you not agree it'd be easily misrepresented as politically naïve for Obama to do that, potentially massively damaging?One can't emphasis enough the difference between not ruling out, and actually launching, rhetoric and action. Going by your flag you're from the US, surely you've seen the various McCain attack ads selectively quoting Obama on Iran already? Given that ammunition, they'd destroy him.
well, it would be extremely damaging to the iranians and working class americans, but very profitable for the military industrial complex and a small portion of the banking industry.
let's face it, this is a fight between democrats and republicans.
nothing else -really- matters. most of the users on esr are too stupid/young/childish to be objective on the matter. i guess that would include you.
seeing what you post you seem anti both rep and dem
..seem to be rooting for some third party loser (who you didnt even vote for). again, no offence but thats how it looks in my eyes.
all of the people you listed are fucked now, so being a follower of those is like saying im following .. uhh.. you to be president. it's just as likely to happen.
and i think you missed the point of my post. if you're not able to talk about this in a grown up way you've shown that you can't take a step back and be objective. it's like self critisism, some can handle it and others cant.
discussing whether some noname guy should be in office instead of those two is so pointless and totally besides reality. i can't see why you would even do that.
and the voting part, if i really rooted for a third party guy i'd most definately get my ass off my computer chair and go vote.
i guess its too much to ask. thing is though, i'm not allowed to vote in the US elections. i never said anything about "not being allowed to say wtf you want". that's just your assumptions.
you can say whatever you want. problem is though.. i might not think your views are trustworthy.
only watched the first link, but indeed a good example at how you should a everything critically. For example the video in the link is utter idiocy.
i mean the author criticises that 500 - 1700 had no economic growth.
now remeber that is the time of monarchs, very few people who owned everything. Then came the revolution poorer people got a bigger share, which resulted in economic growth.
And then they want to take that as an argument for the type of capitalism where a few people get richer and richer and the hope is that the poorer get some share of it.
Let alone that their argumenting and especially quoting style is high school level at best. e.g. regarding the term "econimoic growth" it's a number that doesn't care if people starve. Only dumb populistic shit heads who you civil disasters when talking about the definition of a technical term.
I think they mis-use the word capitalism and use it to mean freemarkets.
I think the point in this presenation was that even under capitalism by collaborating with poor, the rich create distributable wealth;
as opposed to communism - slavery under the corrupt state.
really? I never heard that capitalism has to have rich people to function (except maybe as an incentive). I would rather say it needs people with medium income who have some money to invest wisely rather than waste it on a private jet plane.
Gates wasn't rich, Jobbs wasn't rich. Now, they are that is another matter. See, you have to realize that you don't need much money to start a company. 50.000€ is enough. And then you can get loans from banks and to them it doesn't matter if the money belongs to a rich guy or 100 middle class people.
Just imagine this, in Germany he richer have continually been getting richer but still unemployment (in the last 20 years) is higher than before. So i guess you're saying we should all donate more money to the rich so that we all are better of.
as opposed to communism - slavery under the corrupt state.
You will have to explain that one, seeing the hasn't ever been a communist state. pm demiurge for more on that.
Let alone that their argumenting and especially quoting style is high school level at best. e.g. regarding the term "econimoic growth" it's a number that doesn't care if people starve. Only dumb populistic shit heads who you civil disasters when talking about the definition of a technical term.
Oh boy would have I loved to see the mortality rates :) That would have been even more convincing.
Higher taxing doesn't help the poor either as the outcome seems to often be actually less revenue - because of less competition, inefficiency and poorer job markets.
Yet if you tax more, the rich will remain rich but sack the poor because they can't afford to keep them working, seize their investments.