The Bad Government

[sameerkhan4life]

What do you think about the Government and all the lies and scandles they have brought to the world, them hiding stuff from us and that.

This world would be a much better place if the people running it wern't greedy and use their powers for the wrong reasons.

[iceniner]

The government is the only thing standing between the citizenry and fascist/corporatist rule. As shitty as they may seem, we at least can hire and fire them-- so if they get too out of line, they lose their jobs.

Corporations would love it if the government went away entirely. Then, the only thing that would matter at all would be money, and the citizens would not be able to say anything about anything.

[Th0r]

We will almost certainly will always need a governing body of some sort. Humans cannot be trusted without laws.

Most politicians are scum. That's the truth. Most people who go out intentionally seeking power above others on that kind of level are manipulative, power-freaks. Lying to people is their way. Most politicians have been lying for the majority of their lives. Thing is, had they actually been honest in the first place they wouldn't be in positions of great power.

Very few political parties don't endorse lying, stealing and ripping the people off in general. In the UK under Labour [AKA Socialist Sell-Outs.] we've seen a catastrophic failure of finances both in the public sector and by the people that are meant to rip us off, I mean put our viewpoint forwards. :saroll:

This world would be a much better place if the people running it wern't greedy and use their powers for the wrong reasons.

I think that's true but as I said earlier most of the people who intentionally seek that kind of power are crooked and if they are not then most are damaged by that power they've been trusted with.

[iceniner]

Most politicians are scum. That's the truth. Most people who go out intentionally seeking power above others on that kind of level are manipulative, power-freaks.
This is true. They're sociopath narcissists, which is why they are so often caught doing things like chokefucking prostitutes and trolling for sex in airport mens' rooms: they think they are too smart to get caught.

In a popularity contest between a person who is telling the truth and a person who is an efficient liar, the liar will win every time in the absence of effective fact-checking. Also, a glib, easy popularity is the hallmark of the sociopath, so it could be said that popularity-based systems for selecting leaders are vulnerable to infiltration by narcissists, people who look good in a suit but are really just hollow shells.

[odin_dax]

In a popularity contest between a person who is telling the truth and a person who is an efficient liar, the liar will win every time in the absence of effective fact-checking.

That's half the reason Obama won. The other half is making a lot of promises he won't be able to keep.

[iceniner]

That's half the reason Obama won. The other half is making a lot of promises he won't be able to keep.

Personally, I'll be happy with him until he starts a war against a country that didn't attack us.

He would have to be pretty awful to be as bad as the last administration. If you want to see a narcissist sociopath in action, look no farther than George Bush, a man who has had everything-- including the presidency-- given to him by his powerful father.

When narcissists talk, their words are vacant. I knew one who was obsessed with alloy wheels for his car.

Whether you agree with them or not, Obama's speeches are dense with meaning, almost too much so because I think a lot of it will go over peoples' heads.

What he does with his presidency remains to be seen. It would have to be real bad to be worse than the previous pack of massmurderers.

[sameerkhan4life]

It looks like ive made a good thread, all these posts already!

[odin_dax]

Personally, I'll be happy with him until he starts a war against a country that didn't attack us.

He would have to be pretty awful to be as bad as the last administration. If you want to see a narcissist sociopath in action, look no farther than George Bush, a man who has had everything-- including the presidency-- given to him by his powerful father.

When narcissists talk, their words are vacant. I knew one who was obsessed with alloy wheels for his car.

Whether you agree with them or not, Obama's speeches are dense with meaning, almost too much so because I think a lot of it will go over peoples' heads.

What he does with his presidency remains to be seen. It would have to be real bad to be worse than the previous pack of massmurderers.

A country that doesn't attack us, but gases its own minority population, sets up rape chambers, tortures, murders, has dozens of mass graves... All by a completely sane dictator, sorry, political leader. I think we made the right choice. And before you say why we don't do that for all countries, I say we should.

George W. Bush may have gotten far on his name, but he's not an idiot, contrary to the media build up of his flubs. Now, Obama speaks very well, but speeches are just words, not action. Obama could sell ice cubs in the Arctic, but what he proposes is socialism, big government... I really hope he fails because it's not the government's job to support us.

What happens when the population becomes fully dependent on the government?

[iceniner]

A country that doesn't attack us, but gases its own minority population, sets up rape chambers, tortures, murders, has dozens of mass graves

So you're saying that it's bad to bomb Iraqis? And that murdering and torturing them is bad?

Is it only ok if you're a foreign aggressor?

What about the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld were the people who put Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party in power in the first place, armed them, funded them, provided them with advisors who were notably in-country during the Halabja massacre, a military action against an Iranian mechanized group that had taken refuge in the town?

http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/images/palestine/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

I really hope he fails because it's not the government's job to support us.

You hope that he fails in his efforts to jumpstart the economy that George Bush ran into the ground? And, by the way, maintenance of the well-being of the population is the number one responsibility of the government. You could even say the ONLY responsibility.

What happens when the population becomes fully dependent on the government?
Slippery slope fallacy.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

it?s like this land is either run by labour or liberal
but don?t get entwisted their the same as the criminals

Song: The sea is Rising.

[odin_dax]

So you're saying that it's bad to bomb Iraqis? And that murdering and torturing them is bad?

Is it only ok if you're a foreign aggressor?

That's not at all what I said.

What about the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld were the people who put Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party in power in the first place, armed them, funded them, provided them with advisors who were notably in-country during the Halabja massacre, a military action against an Iranian mechanized group that had taken refuge in the town?

A lot has happened since then, and Rumsfeld spoke out against the massacre.



You hope that he fails in his efforts to jumpstart the economy that George Bush ran into the ground? And, by the way, maintenance of the well-being of the population is the number one responsibility of the government. You could even say the ONLY responsibility.

Bush didn't run this economy into the ground. People that say that obviously don't know how the system works. The President may make it harder or easier for people to trade, or get tax breaks, but that is it and very minimal.

I hope Obama fails in his socialist/communist agendas for big government, more red tape and redistribution of wealth, amongst many more things.

And the government's job isn't to take of us, but to allow us to take care of ourselves and live freely. The Founding Fathers believed in self-reliance and hard work.

I, personally, would like some kind of healthcare for all system, but for those that work or can't work, not the lazy people or the illegals. But, that'll never happen because a system like that would take millions upon millions, mostly from the rich that don't need government healthcare, and I can't imagine all the red tape and wasteful spending the US would put us through. Ideally, yes. Realistically, never.


Slippery slope fallacy.

What is? Explain.

[redjoker]

All I can say is the wrong side won the civil war. This place has been fucked ever since.

[iceniner]

A lot has happened since then, and Rumsfeld spoke out against the massacre.

It may very well have been guilt that caused them to start a war of aggression on false pretenses and murder a million people. I think it's quite plausible.

Bush didn't run this economy into the ground. People that say that obviously don't know how the system works. The President may make it harder or easier for people to trade, or get tax breaks, but that is it and very minimal.

I'm surprised that you'd even say that. When Bush came into office, the economy was doing very well. Now that Bush is out of office, we have a gigantic deficit. Much of what's been going on has been fallout from the $4/gallon gas we were experiencing not too long ago, and that's just one tiny little part of the economic rape that Laughing Boy turned a blind eye to during his time in office.

I hope Obama fails in his socialist/communist agendas for big government, more red tape and redistribution of wealth, amongst many more things.

I never understood why people who are not themselves in the top 1% (unless you are) support the top 1% in their mindless greed. Their interests are 100% inimical to those of normal people.

Socialism does not equal communism.

What is? Explain. Slippery slope fallacy is the idea that things are going to get worse and worse and worse, without demonstrating a logic chain between point A and point Z. "If we outlaw abortion, that will mean more black babies, and more crime, and more drugs, until my child becomes a drug addict and dies." "If we elect a republican for dog catcher, he will become a city councilman and a state representative and then a congressman, and will then cause the nation to become a fascist Nazi state!"

Point is, if Obama increases spending on food stamps, that doesn't mean we're going to become the USSR. It doesn't mean that the population is going to become fully dependent on the government.

[odin_dax]

I'm surprised that you'd even say that. When Bush came into office, the economy was doing very well. Now that Bush is out of office, we have a gigantic deficit. Much of what's been going on has been fallout from the $4/gallon gas we were experiencing not too long ago, and that's just one tiny little part of the economic rape that Laughing Boy turned a blind eye to during his time in office.

Don't be, I studied business. The internet bubble burst under Clinton's last term. Even though it was higher than it was now, it started to go down. If further tanked after 9/11. The housing and banking markets have nothing to do with, Bush, which I'm sure even you are aware. With all the company and personal tax breaks Bush has set, I'm surprised anyone would blame Bush for this economy, especially since it's the FED, not the president, that sets interest rates in America.


I never understood why people who are not themselves in the top 1% (unless you are) support the top 1% in their mindless greed. Their interests are 100% inimical to those of normal people.

I never understood why anyone should be punished for being rich. I don't get a lot of things, like sports players whining about the difference of 20.4 million for five years or 20.5. Still, they're in the business of making and earning money. It's not for use who don't get paid their salaries to judge, nor should we take from them because we're jealous. It's not about supporting the rich or supporting the poor, it's about supporting the right to keep what one earns.

Socialism does not equal communism.

Quite right.

Slippery slope fallacy is the idea that things are going to get worse and worse and worse, without demonstrating a logic chain between point A and point Z. "If we outlaw abortion, that will mean more black babies, and more crime, and more drugs, until my child becomes a drug addict and dies." "If we elect a republican for dog catcher, he will become a city councilman and a state representative and then a congressman, and will then cause the nation to become a fascist Nazi state!"

For the record, I knew what it was, I was just questioning your use of it. Still do.

Point is, if Obama increases spending on food stamps, that doesn't mean we're going to become the USSR. It doesn't mean that the population is going to become fully dependent on the government.

No, of course one or two actions doesn't mean dependency, but that's his direction. His view, rather, is providing. There's a fundamental difference of opinion between me and Obama.

I noticed you didn't refute any statements I made in reference to the Founding Fathers or my view on healthcare. Is it because you agree with them?

[iceniner]

No matter what conditions a president inherits-- and the conditions Bush inherited were a rather extreme boom-- his performance at the end of the day is judged by how well he manages whatever economic situation, and whatever black swans, he may receive.

George Bush removed a trillion dollars from the economy. He did so in order to fund a war against a country that didn't attack us.

What he did is analogous to burning someone's house down in retaliation for breaking one of your windows, and then realizing "Oh, I guess it wasn't him who threw that rock after all."

I never understood why anyone should be punished for being rich.

It's not that they are being punished for being rich. It's that for whatever reason they have benefited disproportionately from the common good. Therefore, we are justified in demanding that they donate some of their table scraps to feed some of the poorest of the poor.

Let's say that I'm a trillionaire. I arrange 10% interest. Because of this interest, I'm now getting whole economies every year, for doing nothing. That money I'm socking away means food that other people aren't eating. It means schools that aren't getting funded.

Ultimately, we work while these people play. 25% tax doesn't matter a jot to Bill Gates and whether his kids eat. For a single, black mother in Compton, that 25% is a HUGE cut into the financial wellbeing of her children. Like it or not, and whatever mealymouthed justifications the Rush Limbaughs of the world can come up with to justify their grossly obese wallets, there is such a thing as nobless oblige which means that these people have a responsibility to give something back to the economy and the workforce that have been so good to them.

The founding fathers? They kicked the rich landowners out, so that they themselves could become rich landowners.

And they set up the United States to be a democracy, not a plutocratic dictatorship of Ivy League cake-eaters.

If paying taxes was such a problem for the Bush crowd, maybe they should have taken care of the situation at home before they spent all that money on clusterbombs.

[odin_dax]

No matter what conditions a president inherits-- and the conditions Bush inherited were a rather extreme boom-- his performance at the end of the day is judged by how well he manages whatever economic situation, and whatever black swans, he may receive.

You may think it's so simple as that.

George Bush removed a trillion dollars from the economy. He did so in order to fund a war against a country that didn't attack us.

Bush declared war, but Congress funded it, even after the Democrats took office. It's still going on now, isn't it? Thought Obama was going to pull out when he took office.

It's not that they are being punished for being rich.

It is.

It's that for whatever reason they have benefited disproportionately from the common good.

Innovation and invention. Investing. What else do you need?

Therefore, we are justified in demanding that they donate some of their table scraps to feed some of the poorest of the poor.

We? You and your socialist, crybaby friends, not me. You can't use the word "demand" and "donate" in the same sentence. We don't do anything. The rich have their money, we have ours.

[QUOTE=iceniner;35202]Let's say that I'm a trillionaire. I arrange 10% interest. Because of this interest, I'm now getting whole economies every year, for doing nothing.

It's a beautiful system, though I don't see how you came up with the numbers you have used. If you were rich, would we honestly be having this conversation? No. In fact, there are more millionaire Democrats in office than Republicans, even eight years ago. Do they share your view? Doubt it.

That money I'm socking away means food that other people aren't eating. It means schools that aren't getting funded.

You go out and give that money away then. Donate it. There are many good hearted people out there that aren't rich that fed the poor, for example. There are rich people out there too. And we have government programs. The fact is, in America, there's no excuse for being that poor. There are many opportunities for people out there. The main obstacle is "pride."

If you're poorer than me, why should I give half my difference to you to make you just as rich as me?

Ultimately, we work while these people play. 25% tax doesn't matter a jot to Bill Gates and whether his kids eat.

It's funny to know that the top 1% contribute 87% of all personal income tax. I think they're paying their fair share.

For a single, black mother in Compton, that 25% is a HUGE cut into the financial wellbeing of her children.

It's sad that there are so many hungry people, but that doesn't mean take from the rich and give to the poor to feed every hungry person in the US (or the world). There are conditions governments can improve, and there are many programs for people in the US. I'm not saying it's easy, but there are means for people in that situation.

And what happens the next tax year when the hungry are hungry again? More money? Do you not see the endless cycle of dependence? Biblical principle states that if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life. Giving blank checks does nothing to solve anything.

Like it or not, and whatever mealymouthed justifications the Rush Limbaughs of the world can come up with to justify their grossly obese wallets, there is such a thing as nobless oblige which means that these people have a responsibility to give something back to the economy and the workforce that have been so good to them.

The Rush Limbaughs of the world can earn as much as they please. It's what thrives the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of this country. If everybody earned the same, who would want to do anything creative or demanding? Not many.

The responsibility the rich have is to pay their taxes, without punishment of being rich. They have the responsibility to be honest in their leadership of multi-billion dollar companies. They employ the poor in their companies so they poor can earn a living and put food on their own tables. That is their responsibility.

Hate the rich all you want, be jealous of them all you want, but there's no way in Hell your socialist agenda will ever be justified or enacted.

[iceniner]

there's no way in Hell your socialist agenda will ever be justified or enacted.

This is precisely the reason why there aren't public highway, social welfare or education systems in the United States. It's also why there are no child labor laws, unemployment compensation laws, COBRA insurance, workman's compensation, government protection of unions, renter protection, public transportation, et cetera.

I'm going to just remove myself from this discussion, I don't have time for yet another political flamewar. I've already been through it numerous times and the mealymouthed excuses just make me sick.

It's time for the Limbaugh crowd, the crowd of the smarmy Hannity-christian torture apologists, to get over the bitterness and move on.

[odin_dax]

This is precisely the reason why there aren't public highway, social welfare or education systems in the United States. It's also why there are no child labor laws, unemployment compensation laws, COBRA insurance, workman's compensation, government protection of unions, renter protection, public transportation, et cetera.

I'm going to just remove myself from this discussion, I don't have time for yet another political flamewar. I've already been through it numerous times and the mealymouthed excuses just make me sick.

It's time for the Limbaugh crowd, the crowd of the smarmy Hannity-christian torture apologists, to get over the bitterness and move on.

No, it's the reason we have those programs and why they're so overspent. There's no accountability in socialism.

Your problem is like every other socialist in America, you want what others have without earning it. You have no logic, only a weak argument that we all live together so the rich should give up their wealth to pay for everyone else's lifestyle. Well, that's not how life works, buddy.

Flame war? There is no flaming on my part. You may find it easy to throw around labels and say anyone that doesn't agree with you is like Limbaugh and Hannity, but I just accept it as another liberal tactic when all else fails. You continue to prove my point about liberals in America, so thank you. I'm nothing like Limbaugh or Hannity, but I don't mind be grouped with other intelligent people (them, not Republicans vs Democrats).

There's nothing more to say, you threw in the towel, and you did nothing to address my last post. Good day.

[Day_N_Night]

No, it's the reason we have those programs and why they're so overspent. There's no accountability in socialism.

Your problem is like every other socialist in America, you want what others have without earning it. You have no logic, only a weak argument that we all live together so the rich should give up their wealth to pay for everyone else's lifestyle. Well, that's not how life works, buddy.



Indeed outright socialism would be disasterous but what would be the problem with a healthy mix of Socialist and Capitalist elements in a democratic nation?

Take Northern Europe(Belgium,Netherlands) and Scandanavia(Den,Swed,Nor) for instance. These countries all have elements of Socialism woven into their country's fabric and it has served them well, has it not?

[Mr.A]

Firstly, I don't look at government being bad anymore. Any time I try to rationalize the government with God in the same sentence I end up wanting to kill myself. Openly, I think of the government the same way I think of this place, we are ally just trying to find the best way to live for one another....and we seem to suck at it. No harm though :)

[Day_N_Night]

Firstly, I don't look at government being bad anymore. Any time I try to rationalize the government with God in the same sentence I end up wanting to kill myself. Openly, I think of the government the same way I think of this place, we are ally just trying to find the best way to live for one another....and we seem to suck at it. No harm though :)

Welcome back Mr.A!


Sometimes, i think of government as an organism unto itself.

It does anything it can to survive and expand just like any other animal in nature including us humans. This would explain over the top crackdowns and horrible human rights abuses.

They do what they have to do to survive and thrive just as a phyichal organism would.

[Mr.A]

Welcome back Mr.A!


Sometimes, i think of government as an organism unto itself.

It does anything it can to survive and expand just like any other animal in nature including us humans. This would explain over the top crackdowns and horrible human rights abuses.

They do what they have to do to survive and thrive just as a phyichal organism would.

Thanks, I'm happy to be back! :tongue2::laughing:

I couldn't agree more which is exactly why I say I believe the government is not bad anymore. We all, admit it or not, seem to be trying to reach for something greater...all would hope for that greater to be something good, obviously since we all don't enjoy living in shitholes. We all have the best intentions for ourselves, in turn for others, it would be nice if we could figure out the secret already. Its ironic really, how we all know how to survive by ourselves and not together.

[thief]

I see you came back after I made the clame "This is my last post" well fuck you. I knew some cunt would crawl back and it had to be you. You fell for the bait like a good little fish. Your still a cunt and Im watching you very closely. :chairshot

[REL0AD]

Thief I'm in kinks hahaha.