-
The "capitalist vs. Democrat" idea is kinda moot, since all governments and most people are capitalists. Even at the height of the commie party they were capitalists. The word in and of itself has derived an incorrect meaning.
There used to be a link here when I first joined that had a really good movie explaining (albeit rather biasedly) the differences in definition of the various forms of government.
Our country was founded on religion and law. The law was based on religious beliefs. Now that America is no longer a Christian country, it's had it's downfall. 28 of the founding fathers and signatories of the constitution had seminary degrees-I could go on all day long on this one.
The point is that once we moved away from God we fell on our face, plain and simple. It cannot be an argument of Capitalism since everybody, including commies are capitalists. Free and private enterprise is what our system is/used to be based on. I find it funny that even the online dictionary has it wrong and defines capitalism as free and private enterprise. And that is what we are losing-bailouts, government backed loans and warranties, etc.-that's still capitalism-also known as communism-just that the government derives the benefits from our labor and not us.
Whatever. I'm with jim02.[Beer]
Anyways, maybe one of the bosses here could repost the link. I think it was a google video.
-
was it the cartoon showing the differences in governments?
-
Also its not a capitalist vs democrat thought. Its capitalist vs. socialist thought or thread debate. I think there is a big difference between the two. Individual gains/loss vs collective gains/loss. If I succeed at a profit through my hard work with business, Shanequa shouldn't get squat from me! If I fail you/everyone shouldn't have to bail me out. And visa versa. Why should I get a dime from your profit if I didn't put in anything. Where is the incentive to try to become successful/wealthy in business in our current gov? I say let the poor lazy asses who make babies for money just stay right were they are. At the bottom of the chain. I'm all about helping the needy but you got to cut the life support at sometime!
You the man Jim02![Beer]
-
My take? There is no difference. Both parties are nothing but scum guzzling fucktards hell bent on lining their pockets with taxpayer money, plain and simple.
Once we rid this country of this false 2 party horse shit, we'll be better off.
-
the problem I have with liberals is the complete lack of parity. you must conform to their world view. there is zero live and let live......
you must celebrate diversity by accepting our lifestyle, but fuck you if you want to own a gun.
we love democracy as long as it goes our way, if not then we protest in the streets.
universities are bastions of higher learning and free speech, but if you say something we don't like we'll yell, rush the stage, and throw things at you.
guns hurt kids and should be banned, but a woman has the right to kill an unborn any time she likes.
al sharpton says "you're not allowed to say that, it's offensive" kanye says "she ain't messin with no broke niggas"
gay man in west hollywood hangs sarah palin in effigy for two weeks with no problems. straight boys in texas hang obama in effigy and get charged with a hate crime.
if I point my finger in a threatening manner and say "bang!" I can be charged with assault, but terrorists trying to kill americans deserve miranda rights and constitutional freedoms.
I can keep going, but I think the point has been made.
-
No keep going I like it! Very well said!
And everyone who may think I like the Republicans......I don't all the time. That being said, I do however feel it is in my best interest to align myself with the/any party (that has a chance of getting elected) that has at least a few of my interest close to theirs. For me it is guns, opportunity to grow business, and not take care of the lower class through high taxes and worthless bills aimed at leveling the playing field. You/we need classes. wealth, middle & lower. Its just the way it is.
-
It's easier to separate by Conservative or Liberal. From my point of view it comes down to:
Conservative:
In God and myself I trust.
Liberals:
In government and others I hope (with my hand out).
-
I see more and more of the entitlement issue coming up now. maybe it was the same when you guys were growing up, but me being pretty fresh out of college (24 now), and my fiance graduating just this year, I see a lot of the younger people feeling like they should GET things instead of WORKING for them.
I know this single item doesn't just apply to just the dems because some of my friends are full blooded redneck repubs but have some of the same feelings. I think this is due to a more left leaning .gov trying to save the people instead of having them work for it.
I would have lost it...she makes 100K a year and wants free health care...tell her ass to save up some money. my employer gives pretty damn good health care coverage, but for just me it is still something like $1500 a year or so, maybe a little less.
-
I consider myself an intellectual - conservatives (of which there are many here) lack intellectuals (I could probably count the number of conservatives intellectuals on one hand, and, aside from perhaps Victor Davis Hanson, who has interesting new takes on stuff in his particular field (history,) none of them are intellectual innovators, just conservative apologists,) for the simple reason that conservatism tends to equate intellectualism with liberalism.
This was a diasastrous choice for Conservatism, and more or less spelled the death knell of the old American system back in the 1930s.
Someone mentioned the school system. Here is a short history of how our schools got to be this way.
It all starts with Plato, but none of you guys want me to go back that far. So lets fast forward to Immanuel Kant. Back when this great country was first founded, a philosopher in Germany (pay attention, Germany - it'll become clear why in a moment,) waged a systematic attack on all of the things that The Enlightenment was based on. Reality, reason, individual rights - all of these were the subject of long, confused and boring attacks. However, America did not have any first-rate philosophers to counter such an attack - the founders held "these truths to be self evident" - they felt that the implicit philosophical foundation (reality as an absolute, reason as man's means to tame reality, individual rights as the only thing the government should be involved in,) of their system was obvious. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and Kant tore the (very poor) intellectual defenses of each apart in his books.
Kant got into ethics, in which he enshrined 'duty' so much that he declared that even enjoying the carrying out of your duty is a moral black mark; but, rather, the height of morality is a scoundrel, who desires in his heart to do evil, instead carrying out his 'duty' in contradiction to all his desires. But he never got into politics. One of his disciples, Hegel (another German,) had to do that. Hegel, if you'll recall, was the primary intellectual influence on Marx. What most people don't know is that his ideas (and his own disciples) were also the primary influence that helped disarm Germany intellectually against the Nazis.
Hegel preached collectivism. His was a religious collectivism (where rulers get authority from "The Whole," something like God.) But his followers took the essence and preached all kinds of collectivism - the most intellectually fashionable one was to combine a smattering of the infant science of biology with Hegel's collectivism and declare that men owe all their allegeance to das volk. Everyone is already familiar what happens when a culture accepts those ideas, I hope.
But as this was happening, Hegel's ideas crossed the Atlantic. The man to look at in America is John Dewey. An early disciple of Hegel, he came up with the distinctly American philosophy of pragmatism, which in fact is not very pragmatic, but thats for another time. The important part here is that Dewey was one of the major leaders of the progressive teaching movement. The remnants of this movement are what guides the schools today - not because of their fierce devotion to ideas (they have demonstrably failed, and miserably at that,) but because no new ideas have risen to challenge them.
Progressive education was "child-centered" rather than "subject-centered." What this meant is that the child's whims, fancies and moods took precidence over learning. Progessive educators were against "system-building" - so if you look back to your school days and remember only a jumble of unconnected, unexplained facts, with no rhyme or reason to remember them, do not wonder. Dewey felt - and imposed on the public school system - that schools are not really for learning stale, intellectual subject matter, but for conditioning the child to adapt to the social attitudes of his or her time - in short, in teaching children to conform to and obey the collective.
Such schools produce, in large parts, illiterates, brutes, and morons. A person who goes through many years of public school and comes out with a genuine respect for ideas is often only that way due to attentive, encouraging parents - the school system itself being very little, if any help there.
The Conservative movement, for the most part agreeing with the premises of the "liberals" (sacrifice is noble, duty to the group is moral, the individual owes his life, to a greater or lesser extent, to the interests of the group, etc.,) had no real argument against the progressive education movement. The result is the recent history of America.
Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough - 'duty to others' as a moral ideal is what allows a bankrupt Democratic party to continue to gain victory at the polls. A Republican party that also clamors about 'duty to others' can and never will bring about any fundamental change in the country. The Democrats are the more consistent advocates of that ideal, and any honest person can see that. If you want to really save America, it is that ideal - and all the intellectual underpinnings that hold it aloft - that you need to fight.
-
Damn, Poncho......
I agree with most of what you said as far as opinion and 100% as far as fact-but the truth in my earlier statement is also fact-the removal of God from this country is when it fell on it's face. I'm no preacher or Bible thumper-just pointing the obvious.
Since you brought up schools, you also must know the first school bill signed by congress and the President was what?
No, Troll, it's not the cartoon-much, much better than that. I'll see if I can find the link after I get done blabbing.
I'm 100% republican-the way a republican is supposed to be-based upon our founding fathers-which I think most here are the same. Today's definition of a republican is trash, IMHO.
Yup, Poncho-your last line says it all. But, and not being a fatalist, I figure it's already too late. for that.
