Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 122 of 122
  1. #101
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,741
    Can you get medical treatment at a military hospital? Can you live on a military base? Can you call the military to come to your aid? Do you have any interaction whatsoever with the military? Do they have any with you or with your community in the US? They have more interaction with people from other countries than they do with people in their own country. They are not a social service, since they do not provide a service to your community. Being a benefit to you doesn't make them a service to you. Social services falls under the Health and Human Services division, not under the DoD.
    You are just grasping at straws here but whatever. For the sake of argument, let's say the military isn't a service. It is still funded by tax money. Which was all the point midnightpulp was making. If the military isn't a service to the community, then all the more reason to stop being paid by it, tbh.

    This is Mid conflating socialism with military spending.
    Military spending is funded by the government taxing the people. I don't know if it is Socialism, but it sure as isn't capitalism, tbh.

  2. #102
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    The solutions are returning to fairness as much as possible. The solutions are expecting honesty. The solutions are people giving a . We have a nation full of narcissists.

    One example is Obamacare. We knew it was bull . The idea of companies cutting hours b/c they don't want to pay healthcare? That's why healthcare can't be tied to employment. And then when the govt. has us by the balls, everything is raised. Just like that, overnight, healthcare went from one-sixth of the economy to one-fifth. I literally watched as Obama changed his stump speech for that. His corporate overlords got in his ear and said, no we expect a bigger cut. What a got. And low IQ Americans accept this. And the rigged media touts it as a success. It's bull .
    Yep. This is where we'll agree in lockstep and until this collective psychosis is fixed, American progress will remain stagnant. And yes, the fault is with American culture at large, a cultural mentality that gained traction during the 80s when obtaining wealth was the "greatest good" a person could endeavor toward and is the sole measure of their worthiness. This is why I like Christianity vs. my liberal counterparts, even though I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it and obviously don't agree with some of its other moral dogma, but its message was clear about the evils of greed. The famous quote of, "Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven," wasn't suggesting rich people are inherently evil. It was illustrating how bottomless greed corrupts a person, how it gives that rich person a superiority complex that he uses to justify his treatment of the poor.

    This is also why America is about as far of a "Christian nation" as a nation could be. Hence, we're a nation filled with "Jeebo s," not actual followers of Jesus.
    Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-11-2020 at 11:43 PM.

  3. #103
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Yep. This is where we'll agree in lockstep and until this collective psychosis is fixed, American progress will remain stagnant. And yes, the fault is with American culture at large, a cultural mentality that gained traction during the 80s when obtaining wealth was the "greatest good" a person could endeavor toward and is the sole measure of their worthiness. This is why I like Christianity vs. my liberal counterparts, even though I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it and obviously don't agree with some of its other moral dogma, but its message was clear about the evils of greed. The famous quote of, "Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven," wasn't suggesting rich people are inherently evil. It was illustrating how bottomless greed corrupts a person, how it gives that rich person a superiority complex that he uses to justify his treatment of the poor.

    This is also why America is about as far of a "Christian nation" as a nation could be. Hence, we're a nation filled with "Jeebo s," not actual followers of Jesus.
    Or why the woman who gave her only two pence to charity was better than the rich throwing around their wealth while living the life.

    I frankly think regardless of left/right, people just need to wake the up. I would've taken Tulsi over Trump (and I'm inclined right) because she was calling out the corruption and being genuine. You really think she wasn't getting one percent even in polls? is rigged, man. Only system players are allowed. These Chumpettes laugh that it's all a conspiracy, but the truth is they support the corruption is all.

  4. #104
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Sure, and there's nothing wrong with looking out for your interests first. I have no problem with that. We all do it, and we all should do it. But I think we also need some kind of collective spiritual or psychological "awakening" (and no, not suggesting religion, even though some could use that if they're inclined) that realizes that material things won't bring you actual happiness. Mega rich people who have 40 houses around the world and mountains of they never, ever use or appreciate act more like addicts than people who buy or collect things to legitimately enjoy them. And no, I'm not suggesting we legislate "consumption," I'm just pointing out our collective addiction to "things" which prevents progress toward helping others.

    And then there's the "addiction to power" mentality I pointed out above. People like Bezos and such are no longer interested in wealth and "things," they're interested in power.
    While you're having your awakening, those others who will never leave the "me first" realm will pretend to be there with you, but will make sure they get the lion's share of the rewards. What you get from it is a warm and fuzzy.

  5. #105
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    You are just grasping at straws here but whatever. For the sake of argument, let's say the military isn't a service. It is still funded by tax money. Which was all the point midnightpulp was making. If the military isn't a service to the community, then all the more reason to stop being paid by it, tbh.
    Sounds like you could be a Federalist.

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Cons utional Convention (6/29/1787).

    Military spending is funded by the government taxing the people. I don't know if it is Socialism, but it sure as isn't capitalism, tbh.
    Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

    We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

    Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.

  6. #106
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

    We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

    Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.
    This sounds romantic and poetic, but it's a bunch of nonsense. Capitalism always had a plan, which was always very clearly delineated: private ownership of means of production with a profit motive. And it has to be constantly monitored and regulated, because historically we have learned that if you do not, you end up with slave masters, robber barons and too big to fail. This doesn't mean I endorse socialism, it simply means that they're simply two different systems, each with it's pro and cons, and each one better suited for particular situations.

  7. #107
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    44,741
    Sounds like you could be a Federalist.

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Cons utional Convention (6/29/1787).


    Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

    We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

    Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.
    Quoting someone else because you don't know what to say.

  8. #108
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    ...are the same ones that are against the separation of church and state?
    You kinda have to be at least mildly hypocritical to be an evangelical. I think it is part of the definition.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •