Okay
Printable View
Okay
is a protestant a non-catholic christain domination.You see this has to stop also.CAtholics and Protestants need to refer to themselves as christains all out.I'm a christain but a catholic will call me a protestant for not worshiping Mary.I mean come on this is all pride here.Governments do this mess also.They categroise they show too much pride.Then they dont co-operate.Then most goernments nd countries burn bridges between them instead of building them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doors
Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
Yeah, you're way off their. He was definitely Impeached, and it says so in your own definition. It states two definitions, one of which says that if you officially charge him with anything before a trial or communal (They charged him, officially, with perjury. He was impeached by that definition.) then he has been impeached. the other way he can be impeached is if he is, without a formal trial, removed from office, with the official reason being misconduct. If a trial occurs, he has been impeached regardless of the outcome. if no trial occurs, he must be removed from office to be considered impeached. make sense now?
one more point 'fore I head on. Communism is one of the most fundementally flawed ideas ever in my opinion. It's working relies on a number of things that can and will never happen, and considering it's a politcal philosophy that pretty much makes it unnacceptable.
1) Communism hold itself in the belief that all people will be content to be uniform. they are not, and will not be content to be uniform, because people are egotistical. be it true or not, they will find someone they believe to be a lesser individual and become bitter at the fact that the individual recieves the same support as they do form the government.
2) It assumes people have the drive to work for the common good. Removing physical rewards for good labor removes the desire to work for oneself. all that remains is the assumed desire to work simply to maintain the system. Exististentialism to this degree is profoundly depressing to people and brings about apathy and declining drive and work ethic. production goes down, quality of goods go down, and the communist state is no longer able to compete on a wordly level. this is why communist states often had a notriously bad standard of living and were equally notorious for attempting to expand their territory. new blood in the form of taken nations had not had this depression-work effect set in yet, and were able to support the motherland to some extent.
3) It assumes the ability to return to an even playing field without incident. If communism is applied to a current state, lets jsut say the USA for example, then you must work with the current unequal resources. Now, you're on the pulpit preaching ultimate equality to all of the masses. equal rights and wealth for the poor as the rich. all of this comes crashing to a halt when the formerly rich sit out in front of the house with a shotgun saying "No way i'm leaving, i spent years building this and paying it off. my family grew up here, you aren't taking my house." What do you do? do you kill them or remove them from the premises by force? Now, with this occuring on a mass scale, people start to worry... what do you consider the median to be? is it upperclass suburbs? then the soccer mom type families start worrying, b/c you're tyrannical power is going to remove them from their homes. you've lost the masses, because everyone is worried they are on your list. Communism cannot survive without the trust and support of the people, you're system folds, and the rich bring back capitalism.
that's the way I see it, Communism doesn't work and never will, even on paper. I don't like the idea either. trusting the govt. to give you equality and relying on that seem pathetic to me. if i have something i want that satisfaction of knowing i EARNED it, with my own brain and body. without that, anything you give me is worthless. even with a gift from a friend, you know you earned it by being that good a friend to them. a govt. hand out? that would depress me beyond anything.
I don't. I'd prefer to get my own medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
Because our government is englufed in a lot of political thought, and not all of it is compatiable with lassiez-faire capitalism (actually, it's nice to know we have free-speech and stuff, so I'm not complaining about the different political thought; merely the actions). Namely: socialism and fascism, which is how the Patriot Act got passed. ("For the good of everyone.")Quote:
BTW if the Patriot Act was so unconstitutionalble how in the world did it get passed?
I didn't like either president.Quote:
But about past administrations, they were some good ones. Clinton did do some good, he tried to make peace in Isreal, but later was impeached for the Minca scandle. Same with Nixion, he was the first president to go to China during the Cold War, to try to make peace yet again he get's empeach for the Watergate scandle. I see a very bad pattern, presidents who do good later are put out of office in some form....That's scary...
Certainly.Quote:
About other nations and their governmemts, yes no system is perfect, If youu want an American gov. POV just look in the their little black book, you'll see N. Korea, Iran, etc...So people would agree with others and say the US is evil (ie. Iran), but there is other evil going on in the world.
I am a radical capitalist, yes. Though, I can't help but tell you that the way you learned the whole political spectrum is highly, highly inaccurate. I'd say capitalism and fascism are extreme opposites; capitalism supports freedom, while fascism supports opression. Likewise, socialism (or "pure socialism", i.e. communism) supports uniformity; capitalism ("pure capitalism"; not a mixed economy like the US) supports individuality. Fascism and capitalism are entirely different.Quote:
BTW Temple Knight, if I recall correctly you said your extreme capatilist, well wouldn't that make you fascist? They way I learned the whole political spectrum was like this:
Communism Socialism Center Capatalism Fascism
|______________|_______________|___________|_______________|
I'd see it more in "personal" freedom and "economic" freedom. Communism and fascism denies both. Pure capitalism supports both. Our current political parties in the US support either tier: the Republicans are mainly for economic freedom yet tend to deny personal freedoms (or the right-wing), while the Democrats are mainly for personal freedoms (mainly) while denying economic freedoms (or the left-wing).
In this case, I dismiss the "center" entirely; it's in moderation, or in other words, would piss both fascists/communists and capitalists off. xD
I'd say the Democrats are pretty left wing. Kerry was trying to win support for socialized health care, just like in the rest of the world. (As if to say, "everyone else does it, so we should, too!")Quote:
Yeah, both US political parties are to the right, whilst it's norhtern neighbour's parties tend to be around the center, but there is some Canadian politicians whom themselves are to the right, *coughs* Paul Martin, and *forgets name* the Conservative leader, this was a terrible election in Canada last year, luckily I couldn't vote yet. (Sorry for going off topic)
You needn't also mention people might be bitter at the fact that their hard work and effort will go by unrewarded. I don't care so much if everyone else is doing well, only if I myself get enough for my efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocietyzAntidote
That's true, too. "The common good" becomes "everyone else's benefit sans yourself" and a mockery to living. While I don't want to sound like a bastard, but first and foremost in my life is, well, my life. I want to get benefits for hard labor. It's lost, and I don't feel like working for the benefit of everyone but me.Quote:
2) It assumes people have the drive to work for the common good. Removing physical rewards for good labor removes the desire to work for oneself. All that remains is the assumed desire to work simply to maintain the system. Exististentialism to this degree is profoundly depressing to people and brings about apathy and declining drive and work ethic. production goes down, quality of goods go down, and the communist state is no longer able to compete on a wordly level. this is why communist states often had a notriously bad standard of living and were equally notorious for attempting to expand their territory. new blood in the form of taken nations had not had this depression-work effect set in yet, and were able to support the motherland to some extent.
And if the rich bring back capitalism and not fascism, than God bless the rich. Anyway... that's true, because no one is willing to give up what was once theirs, and no one is willing to support a government that sums up the phrase "the end justifies the means". As if slaughtering half a country's population is justified in supporting the other half.Quote:
3) It assumes the ability to return to an even playing field without incident. If communism is applied to a current state, lets jsut say the USA for example, then you must work with the current unequal resources. Now, you're on the pulpit preaching ultimate equality to all of the masses. equal rights and wealth for the poor as the rich. all of this comes crashing to a halt when the formerly rich sit out in front of the house with a shotgun saying "No way i'm leaving, i spent years building this and paying it off. my family grew up here, you aren't taking my house." What do you do? do you kill them or remove them from the premises by force? Now, with this occuring on a mass scale, people start to worry... what do you consider the median to be? is it upperclass suburbs? then the soccer mom type families start worrying, b/c you're tyrannical power is going to remove them from their homes. you've lost the masses, because everyone is worried they are on your list. Communism cannot survive without the trust and support of the people, you're system folds, and the rich bring back capitalism.
Exactly. Not that in a pure socialist state one would even be able to get a hold of said gift.Quote:
that's the way I see it, Communism doesn't work and never will, even on paper. I don't like the idea either. trusting the govt. to give you equality and relying on that seem pathetic to me. if i have something i want that satisfaction of knowing i EARNED it, with my own brain and body. without that, anything you give me is worthless. even with a gift from a friend, you know you earned it by being that good a friend to them. a govt. hand out? that would depress me beyond anything.
I think that it was excusable a hundred years ago for people to say, "Communism is a good system but it's impractical". Now, it's inexcusable completely. Communism signifies the denial of the individual. It sacrifies self to state. Sorry, but that sounds quite evil, to me.
WOW, well done, because of the length i mean.Quote:
everything temple knight said
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional in its very definition. Look up the 4th amendment.Quote:
BTW if the Patriot Act was so unconstitutionalble how in the world did it get passed?
Thanks, but I was going for quality. ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Croyles
*continues singing, only much louder, thus interupting everyone esle's arguments* America, America. God bless the USA........
Sing it with me now!!!!!
America, America. From sea to shining sea!!!!
Don't double post and don't spam ~Matty
what people belive does not always rub off, My parents are unintrested in/and slightly antimonarchy while I am extremely Monarchist.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
there's america for you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosknight
but if your monarchist then how come you don't ask yourself why you wouldn't have any power if you actually lived under a monarchy and if you do then um basicly ask yourself why should someone be born into power instead of working hard and busting there butts for it to make sure there good for the position they hold in your country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
Oaky, I am for individualism, but I am saying there is good and bad in all POV's. BTW Aristrole (sp??? Also, this last bit If I get it wrong, please fill free to correct me) He believed the best systems where: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. But if they were perverted by man's hands, they would become: Tyranny, Oligarchy, and well I think it was **.( I forgot what it was, becaus eone scource said rebuyblic turns into democracy the other said democracy to something else) My point is, there are great minds that have different opinions. Monarchy can be good, but only if the monarch is taught to care for his peopel, and not himself. I completely disagree with the secound on though, because avarice is a BIG temptation, people fall fast when it comes to greed. With the last part, well, I think democracy is tainted. In it's life span, it came acroos to many greedy hands, therefore it has fallen. But yes it does work, but it needs to be improve. I hate it in Canada, how we are unable to vote directly for our head of gov. On the positve side, Our head of gov, and head of state is seperate, therefore it prevents unconstitutional stuff from happening *coughs*Patriot Act
I am sorry, if I went off topic, please forgive me...
Yeah yeah yeah im against the patriot act also but congress didn't even bother to erad it before they passed it.Anyway I just don't know why we are going by what Aristotle is saying I can care less though some of his studies actually contributed to modern-day society.THis whole thread on how american gov. sucks has just ran out of wood to keep the fire going and in a short time the fire will go out just telling ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of LeviathanOaky, I am for individualism, but I am saying there is good and bad in all POV's. BTW Aristrole (sp??? Also, this last bit If I get it wrong, please fill free to correct me) He believed the best systems where: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. But if they were perverted by man's hands, they would become: Tyranny, Oligarchy, and well I think it was *
I am sorry, if I went off topic, please forgive me...
also try telling someone who grew up in a progressive state such as oklahoma that monarchy is better yet the people who waited to turn 18 to have a right to vote can't vote on rather they should tax this crertain thing or raise taxes or lower taxwa etc etc etc.USA gov. sucks now because the republicans are in power nuff said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of LeviathanOaky, I am for individualism, but I am saying there is good and bad in all POV's. BTW Aristrole (sp??? Also, this last bit If I get it wrong, please fill free to correct me) He believed the best systems where: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. But if they were perverted by man's hands, they would become: Tyranny, Oligarchy, and well I think it was *
I am sorry, if I went off topic, please forgive me...
Yes, Aristotle said that. America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. Which is another reason why America freaking rocks.
And greed is good. 'nuff said.