T1B

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:05 am**

nickie,

Let's just go ahead and suppose that you are right about socialist paradises funding your private idea.

Who decides which ideas get funded? There are plenty of jackasses out there that think they have great ideas....but they don't.

In a capitalist system, you risk your own dough or the dough of someone you can talk into backing you.

How does this work in your wonderful little socialist garden of eden?

Some fukking hack decides who gets the money...somebody else's money. Did I spell that right? WGARA.

It's really simple, you fukking dolt. If you put someone else in charge of your money, they are likely to take advantage of the situation. Actually, that's not right. They WILL take advantage of the situation.

Why is this soo hard to understand. Let people do with their money as they see fit. Not because they will do the right thing or the wrong. Do it because it's THEIR FUKKING MONEY!!!!!!

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:07 am**

Dins, I'd just like to thank you for not using stupid assed british spelling like nationalised. notice the upper mexicans dropping it all the time, but, I guess it's hard to blame them as they were a colony like, what, about 6 months ago.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:27 am**

I haven't offered any definition of "socialism" in the first place, except to refer to those rather obvious examples of modern nations actively promoting the health and education of its citizens. And while there are unending tales of people waiting on lists and getting unsatisfactory health care, there are plenty of untold tales of just the opposite. Japan is a very good example of a modern nation actually providing for itself. Of course Japan is similarly fucked in the current financial meltdown, but it's hardly their fault.

Obviously the factor which will allow America at least to save itself is to divert the huge percentage of our budget that goes to military spending back into the nation itself. Because while Capitalism is itself a short-termed and thus very flawed approach to long term planetary survival, Corporatism is much worse. And this is exactly what the Military Industry is: Capitalism on a sixty-year steroid binge--morphed into an utterly toxic budget-busting corporate monstrosity. And until this critical situation is itself addressed and repaired any talk of "socialism" and so forth is just balloon juice.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:40 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And while there are unending tales of people waiting on lists and getting unsatisfactory health care, there are plenty of untold tales of just the opposite.

Oh yeah?

Cite one.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:47 am**

BTW, for those unfamiliar...

Japan's national health care system is broken, and about to go broke.

And no, I'm not making this up... their solution to this is to ask everyone to pleasepleaseprettyplease pay their bill out of pocket anyway.

No, seriously.

So, since Nicky's example he keeps citing is shit, would he care to cite a system that's actually working?

Their number they roll out are complete horseshit. The reason they spend less as a country, is because they don't actually pay the bill -- sort of an Obama-esque model. Yeah, sounds like a sustainable system alright... if you're retarded, immoral socialist.

But here's a point blank question, Nick:

What believes you're entitled to any portion of what I own to pay YOUR bills?

Did you take a bullet for me back in Nam or something?

There's another word for people who lay claim to that which belongs to others -- they call them "thieves."

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:56 am**

BTWBTW --

FACT: The USA had by far the most advanced, least expensive health care in the world, and it wasn't even close.

FACT: The rapid rise in health care costs coincided with GOVERNMENT MANDATES TO INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. FACT.

FACT: What Nicky and The Commies aren't telling you, is the federal government already handles 67% of all health care transactions in the United States.

FACT: Health care costs have increased in reasonable proportion to the percentage of medical transactions handled by the federal government.

FACT: If putting 2/3rd of the nation's health care into the feds hands resulted in disaster, only a complete fucking idiot who has never cracked a history book would have any reason to believe shifting 100% of the transactions to the fed would create improvement.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:00 am**

Let's see if Fidel Frisco can connect the dots, and see if he can't figure out why he's A) Wrong, B) Lying, and C) A fucking idiot.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:15 am**

Don't get me wrong -- military spending is wayyyyyy too high.

Unless the Iraqi Navy is crossing the Atlantic right now, and nobody told me.

It don't fucking say "Provide for the common OFFENSE."

Bring every last one of them home from every country. Just let it be known that anyone who fucks with us, loses their capital city, and any further transgression result in the rest of the country being leveled.

Pretty fucking simple, and very efficient.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:18 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Please -- enlighten us with your vast and personal knowledge of universal health care.
Actually, he exhibits the signs of being dropped on his head by a nationalized nurse, so maybe he can speak to it.

Myself, I was born in a private hospital in Portland, OR, which meant the doctor needed to be competent to keep his job.

Myself, I was born in a University hospital full of interns and medicaid patients. Now I enjoy beer, pornography, and football...I think I turned out alright.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:33 am**

PSUFAN wrote:What a steaming load of childish bullshit. "An unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others" is as perfect a description of capitalism as it is of socialism. What exactly allows even the most "free" economy to exist? Force.

Our own economy is ultimately based on the threat of force. We take shit from the weaker guy, and either he likes it or we crush him.

How do you imagine socialist/communist nations have secured and maintained land and resources, if not by force?

Take your time.

It's very evident that the country's founders drew up the Constitution so as to reign in government while expanding personal liberty.

This bill turns that on it's head, to say the very least.

Every bit of government spending this bill calls for could be done by PRIVATE entities.
And if there is something that could not be provided by a private entitiy, then it sure as hell isn't worth having.

It's common sense that when a private party has HIS money on the line in an endeavor, he sees to it that it is cost-efficient.
But whenever the gov does something you have dipshits slacking, passing the buck, and saying, "Fuck it, 'the gov' is paying for this mess."

Waste and incompetence ... at the taxpayer's expense.
Inevitably.

There was a season for a lot of us when we sat in a college classroom and listened to our ponytailed prof' expound on the virtues of socialism, while trashing capitalism ... inbetween sips of his double frappucino.

We soaked it in, thought it sounded cool, fresh, ... rebellious.

We went back to our dorm, fired up a doobie or two, thought about it some more, jerked off ... and then went over to the registrar's office to make sure mommy and daddy had in fact made the tuition payment on time.

If you're a working adult and you're still drinking the kool aid your ponytailed prof' is mixing up, you are quite simply one sad and stupid motherfucker.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:17 am**

No reason to lose hope. This doesn't have to last. And as Biden said, there is a 30% chance it MIGHT do some good.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:32 am**

Dinsdale wrote:BTW -- I believe the VA hospital was built in the 1930's, to deal specifically with injured troops from WW2.

Sin,
AmericanHistoryDinsdale

Fixed that 4 ya :)

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:12 am**

How do you imagine socialist/communist nations have secured and maintained land and resources, if not by force?

Take your time.

You might take the time to notice that I never said anything like that - or that I am not advocating socialism over capitalism, or any other system. I'm reacting to a particularly short-sighted and ill-placed Ayn Rand blurb that was posted in the thread - one that could equally true for either side of the zealot spectrum.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:47 am**

PSU, what you've done is take on the postmodern squid line of thinking that everything is sort of ... ok ... in it's own way.

Instead of taking UP for capitalism, you posted this ...

Hell, capitalism has gone well, until...

Hell, socialism has gone well, until...

Hell, instant replay has gone well, until...

Hell, communism has gone well, until...

Why would you lump socialism and communism right in with capitalism?

If you have no conviction that capitalism is better than communism, then just say so.

The quote from Ayn Rand, "Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." which Wofman posted, is absolutely correct.

Her take is based on a model of government which would already be in place.

It's a given that ANY nation with political system gets established and maintained by force ... or threat of force.

If you took two groups 100 random people and placed them each on equal isolated islands, one operating with communism and one operating with capitalism, it is MY belief that if we checked back in 50 years, the one set up with capitalism would be a MUCH stronger, vibrant, and healthy society than the one set up with communism.

As 88 pointed out, there ARE some big gainers in a capitalist system, but the middle tends to get pulled UP in such a system, whereas in communism there is little incentive to rise, and everyone just sort of bunches together in a sub-mediocre glob of ... "Oh well, so what?"

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:39 pm**

poptart wrote:As 88 pointed out, there ARE some big gainers in a capitalist system, but the middle tends to get pulled UP in such a system, whereas in communism there is little incentive to rise, and everyone just sort of bunches together in a sub-mediocre glob of ... "Oh well, so what?"

And you think the middle & lower classes have been pulled up in the last twenty years? Where do you think the incentive is to work hard for those who have done exactly that & fallen behind?

Those who mock socialism are usually the ones who embrace capitalistic feudalsim (I'm not for complete socialism, but we need to move closer in that direction than capitalism to get this economy going).

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:57 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote: And you think the middle & lower classes have been pulled up in the last twenty years? Where do you think the incentive is to work hard for those who have done exactly that & fallen behind?

Those who mock socialism are usually the ones who embrace capitalistic feudalsim (I'm not for complete socialism, but we need to move closer in that direction than capitalism to get this economy going).

The middle class? Yes. The lower? No. There is a reason they are the lower. They are dumb/lazy. Socialism certainly can raise them up, at the expense of everyone else. It will also cause some that might be in a higher class to say fukk it and go on the dole. Being poor in europe is a better deal than being poor in the US, but, it is worse for everyone else.

What exactly do you mean by capitalistic feudalism? Are you talking about the novel concept of someone leaving his shit to one of his kids so he can be rich too?

So we need to go closer to socialism? How much closer, dumbfukk? Should we be about 47% socialistic? And how does going away from capitalism get an economy going? Who will decide where this magical balancing point is?

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:36 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote: And you think the middle & lower classes have been pulled up in the last twenty years? Where do you think the incentive is to work hard for those who have done exactly that & fallen behind?

Those who mock socialism are usually the ones who embrace capitalistic feudalsim (I'm not for complete socialism, but we need to move closer in that direction than capitalism to get this economy going).
The middle class? Yes. The lower? No. There is a reason they are the lower. They are dumb/lazy. Socialism certainly can raise them up, at the expense of everyone else. It will also cause some that might be in a higher class to say fukk it and go on the dole. Being poor in europe is a better deal than being poor in the US, but, it is worse for everyone else.

What exactly do you mean by capitalistic feudalism? Are you talking about the novel concept of someone leaving his shit to one of his kids so he can be rich too?

So we need to go closer to socialism? How much closer, dumbfukk? Should we be about 47% socialistic? And how does going away from capitalism get an economy going? Who will decide where this magical balancing point is?

I recognize that there will always be a lower class, and those who refuse to contribute to society should be left to fail. But too many people who do work full time & contribute to society are falling further & further behind. Most of those people are middle class, but quite a few are in the lower classes as well (check out how food banks are finding demand growing).

By capitalistic feudalism I am referring to how those at the top are becoming richer & richer while the rest are falling further behind. It isn't just the housing market that's giving the economy trouble. The media & corporate America like to talk about jobs being created & employment rates, but never go deeper than that. It's not hard to see that more & more people are earning less than they were twenty years ago (through either layoffs, change of employment, or pay cuts in the name of helping the company survive). How many of these people who are losing their homes could have predicted that they'd be making less (or lose their health safety net) when they took out their loans? So now we have less & less people that are able to contribute to the economy.

And as I've said before, $100,000 for producing widgets for the masses helps the economy more than $100,000 for a yacht. The more people who are employed with a living wage, the more people you have as consumers. The greedy lust of those in the republican side of the aisle have fogotten the wise words of Henry Ford. Additionally, this bailout shit isn't going to help. What would cause you to be more likely to spend....a bonus or a raise? We need to get the middle class back to where they can not only get their head above water, but have discretionary funds as well. But corporate America will have nothing of that. They will continue their bleeting that they need tax cuts & bailouts while doing nothing for enabling their workers to spend more.

How far should we go back towards socialism? I doubt one could assign a percentage to that, but I will say it wouldn't take to far to get this economy back on it's feet. Look at the one of the most prosperous times of this country...the 50's & early 60's. That was when the American Dream wasn't just a fantasy for most Americans. Of course, corporate executives weren't making 400% of what the lowest workers were being paid back then. Is it really socialism to expect executives to have two or three homes instead of seven or eight & personal jets? It's not, but the republicans have duped middle america into thinking that it is. Part of the problem with middle America is that they all think they're going to hit the lottery. Why else would they be concerned about estate taxes that wouldn't effect most of them? People have to be more realistic about where they are in life & where they will end up when it comes to listening to the bleeting of the republican leadership on tax issues. The tax cuts & shelters only move the country further to being a feudalistic society while doing nothing for the economy.

I'd add more but I'm late for an appointment, and my motocycle is calling me. :D

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:53 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:The greedy lust of those in the republican side of the aisle

That sums up your entire problem. Greed and Lust have no D or R next to it's name, only an H (for human). But with your head up your ass all the time you fail to see that. They had to rush the vote yesterday because Princess Pelosi had to fly in her private jet - perhaps - to Italy. Her vacation outweighs the need for the American public and it's representatives to thoroughly read through "historical legislation" ?

Go fuck yourself. "Greedy Lust of those in the republican side of aisle".

It was a Republican who gave Obama's "Joe the Plumber" Henrietta The Homeless in Florida a home you fucking dick. A private citizen helping a fellow citizen.

http://www.winknews.com/news/local/39518252.html

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - A woman making national headlines after a tearful moment with President Obama has a new home.

Thursday morning, Chene Thompson handed Henrietta Hughes the keys to her home in Hendry County. Thompson is the wife of State Representative Nick Thompson (R-District 73). Hughes and her son will live at the home rent free.

At President Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers on Tuesday, Henrietta Hughes stood up and told the President she has been homeless since 2003 and can't find a job.

She also says she's reach a dead end with government assistance and none of the local charity agencies will help.

However, a local organization is coming forward saying Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past.

The director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused.

"We would have allowed her to stay for the first 90 days, no income. You know free," said Tanya Johnson.

We Care Outreach Ministry is a faith based organization in Fort Myers.

Johnson says she also gave Henrietta and her son Corey, money, food and offered Corey job training courses, but it was refused.

"We have extended a lot of her services to her," Johnson said.

But Henrietta Hughes says these services weren't free and the apartment in East Fort Myers came with a price tag.

Hughes says Tanya Johnson wanted $400 a month immediately.

The disability check Hughes gets is a little more than $800 a month.

Hughes owes money on a loan, has her car insurance payment, a monthly storage bill and says she couldn't afford the rent.

"Where was I going to get $400 a month to give her if I got these expenses," Hughes told WINK News.

WINK News Reporter Nick Spinetto went back to talk to Tanya Johnson.
She stands by her story.

Henrietta Hughes says she's never taken advantage of the system and doesn't choose to be homeless. Like other programs she's tried to get help from,she says We Care couldn't meet her needs.

State Representative Nick Thompson and his wife Chene are standing by the Henrietta and her son, Corey. They spoke out against the allegations Henrietta is milking the system, even when confronted with the fact WINK News found out the Hughes' sold property, back in 2005. This is after Henrietta and her son lost thier home in 2003 and started living in their car. Henrietta and her son sold the land for $47,000 dollars. But Chene Thompson says that was all the money they had for several years and it's gone.

"They have nothing today. They need help today. They didn't need help in 2005. They need help today. So whether they had $47,000 or $147,000 in 2005, it doesn't matter. They don't have any money today," she said.

The Thompson's say they are sad Henrietta has to defend herself against these allegations and they will continue to help her. They also hope it doesn't deter other people from helping.

Republican, Catholic family. Actually getting up off their ass to help instead of talking about it on message boards and "town hall meetings".

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:04 pm**

My motorcycle is calling too, but, it's buried behind a snow bank. Fukkoff, left coast weather pussy!!!!!

The 50s and 60s were good. And you are right about something happening sometime in the mid 60s. Care to guess what it was?

I'll help.

The fed decided to overstep it's bound in a huge fukking way. I mean, it had been overstepping quite a bit starting with the new deal, but, it went batshit crazy with great society nanny state socialism in the late 60s.

This program caused some who might have made it out of the lower class to say fuggit, this ain't so bad.

The other thing we had going for us in the 50s-60s was the fact that we actually made shit back then. Pretty much had too since the other places that made shit were still smoldering from the ass kicking they needed a few years earlier.

Not really sure what the answer to that problem is. Excessive protectionism fukks everyone and contributed to the depth and duration of the depression.

I think the best answer is to make america a good place to do bidness again. Over regulation and socialism sure as hell are not the way to make that occur. Simpler regulation and tax codes alone with a good old fashioned lynching party for a large chunk of the lawyer population are more what I had in mind.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:29 pm**

smackaholic wrote:it's

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:it's

It's now beginning to border on cruelty.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:30 pm**

Van wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:it's
It's now beginning to border on cruelty.

My hangover has reached it's peak, and Im cracking myself up over here.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:02 pm**

Diego wrote:And you think the middle & lower classes have been pulled up in the last twenty years? Where do you think the incentive is to work hard for those who have done exactly that & fallen behind?

Those who mock socialism are usually the ones who embrace capitalistic feudalsim (I'm not for complete socialism, but we need to move closer in that direction than capitalism to get this economy going).

We haven't had free market capitalism the last 20 years.

It's been continual government interference.
And that is why we are now fucked dry and at the point where m0ronic rubes think the solution is ... MORE ... and a LOT more, government interference.

It's a complete folly.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:12 am**

Its a good thing I have a sense of humor.

Enjoy your hangover, dins. You won't be able to afford one once the people's republic of oregon get's done jacking up the tax.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:17 am**

poptart ... wouldn't the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 be considered the first encroachment on pure free market by government ?

Personally, my opinion, is that we will never have a pure free market. It's impossible based upon human nature. Politicians should be forced to lose their suits and don uniforms that look like Nascar uniforms so we can see who has bought them.

When some think of a pure free market the agricultural south i.e. slavery and sharecropping, the conditions in Appalachia with "company stores", and an industrial north with sweat shop conditions and child labor comes to mind. Without government intervention those "things" wouldn't have stopped. Further without government intervention those "things" wouldn't have been allowed to continue for as long as they did.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:39 am**

Tom In VA wrote:When some think of a pure free market the agricultural south i.e. slavery... Without government intervention those "things" wouldn't have stopped.

True, but the Constitution is there to define citizenship issues, and this is a case where government interventionwas called for, and constitutionally mandated.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:11 am**

Absolutely.

But it took government interference to continue it and abolish it. A free market would have that the states would "come to it's senses" as Massachussetts did and end it on their own OR through individual choice to not purchase goods from slave states such that it was no longer profitable for them to continue the practice. Further the government not only allowed it to continue but regulated it, so even then it wasn't a "pure free market".

Point is, IMHO there is no such thing as a pure free market - save for the black market perhaps - just as there is no such thing as pure socialism or communism.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:45 am**

Tom, you're right, there won't BE a truly pure free market.
But the Constitution, as written, assures us of being reasonably close to it.

The "social programs" this current bill calls for are just simply NOT authorized by the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 tells what our taxes (or borrowing) are to be spent on.

The libs (republicans included, notice) have taken the "general welfare" words and applied it to whatever they want to apply it to.

I just find it amazing that dimwits are crying about the cratering of the economy coming as a result of free market capitalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:18 am**

poptart wrote:I just find it amazing that dimwits are crying about the cratering of the economy coming as a result of free market capitalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't think the reduction of the middle & lower classes as spenders has any effect on the economy?

We now see the results of your breath-holding contest immediately after your being hatched.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:28 am**

People working full time should live in housing like this....

and be happy with it.

Sincerely,
86'ed

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:41 am**

Why would you lump socialism and communism right in with capitalism?

If you have no conviction that capitalism is better than communism, then just say so.

pop, my point is that both of them sound great as they read on paper, but they are practiced in the real world, where human nature has a say in the matter. Great and also awful things are done in the name of both. In that regard, they are indeed similar.

In all forms of government, those who have access to power end up abusing it. Capitalism does indeed rely on the protections of government at some level.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:48 am**

poptart,

The whole truth has nothing to do with stumping for a specific agenda. No matter the agenda. Propaganda abounds and all that is needed for that are little threads of truth spun and woven into a sales pitch.

Our Government, in fact, has brought about great things by providing "stimulus" in the past. How about the space program ? A multi faceted stimulus. What about DARPA that produced this thing through which we're communicating ? Personally, I believe Obama's heart was in the right place, Investing in "infrastructure" projects should stimulate the economy not unlike investing in defense projects has done in the past and present. I think it's unwise to do it at the expense of defense spending but realize the interstate highway system was put in place, largely to support military transportation and logisitcal lines.
I also believe his head was in a dark place. I think Pelosi, Reid and other democrats in congress along with Obama corrupted the spirit of the bill to further an idealogy. They are capitalizing on this situation as they have been since the housing market started it's tumble.

So we tilt left a little bit. People will find it isn't the panacea they once did. Keep talking about conservative principles and more importantly the U.S. Constitution. Enlighten people about how there is no race, creed, or cultural bar against supporting the U.S. Constitution or holding conservative values and principles. Facts, truth, and experience will once again tilt things to the right - in time.

Until such time that it tilts back to the left.

At least I hope so, some think something far more insidious is happening - by design. That every president dating as far back as Woodrow Wilson have been leading us somewhere else. Like I said, propaganda abounds and all that is needed for that are little threads of truth spun and woven into a sales pitch. It is rare any agenda gets play without creating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the targetted audience.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:51 am**

PSUFAN wrote: In all forms of government, those who have access to power end up abusing it.

RACK THE TRUTH

WAR TERM LIMITS

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:06 am**

Well, it is somewhat proof of the fact a "pure free market" cannot exist without government interference, that would be to quell any violent revolt targetting the companies that don't take care of people. It is situations as depicted in that picture that make it fertile ground for communism to breed. It took poverty less than that to allow for socialism and facism to take root in Nazi Germany.

One would think a smart business entity would understand that accomplishing the mission and taking care of your people is the road to true success. In an ideal world, that's how a free market would operate. For awhile it did operate that way here in America. But greed met greed and like magnets repelled each other and repelled most of our manufacturing sector and resource procurement sector overseas.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:27 am**

PSUFAN wrote: where human nature has a say in the matter

that gets thrown around far too much I think, it's a throwaway phrase - capitalist junk science. human nature is malleable.
darwin (the real one, not the 'social darwinism' guy) made definitive scientific arguments that humans, animals have no real, fixed nature.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:41 am**

Indeed, but I'm sure Darwin's keen scientific eye would conclude that unlike other animals the human animal is one whose natural instincts are warped to the point of being too greedy, too lustful, too gluttoness, too slothful, too vain, too wrathful, and the leader of the pack ... way too prideful.

And because of that nature, as a species, one day we will probably win the Darwin Award.

Oh, and we'll probably help a whole host of other species end up in Darwin's annals as well.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:07 am**

Tom In VA wrote: natural instincts are warped to the point of being too greedy, too lustful, too gluttoness, too slothful, too vain, too wrathful, and the leader of the pack ... way too prideful.

but that comes from being reared in a system where people develop an emotional stake in all types of authoritarian relationships. men dominating women, one business destroying the other, one nation dominating another, higher levels of the worforce lording over the lower levels. conditioning isn't a permanent state of affairs.
that's the really really, big question of revolutionary politics - whether or not these barriers can be, or will be overcome. the 'human nature' gobbledygook seems to imply that it's on some sort of weird, genetic level.

animals, people and systems evolve - always have, always will.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:10 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:that's the really really, big question of revolutionary politics - whether or not these barriers can be, or will be overcome. the 'human nature' gobbledygook seems to imply that it's on some sort or weird, genetic level.

No, it is on a totally different level. One that supercedes genetics, one science cannot explain - yet.

Poptart can though. You'll also find reference to same in Buddhism, near/far enemies is the Buddhist concept if I remember correctly.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:18 am**

88 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:People working full time should live in housing like this....

and be happy with it.

Sincerely,
86'ed
Why did you post a picture taken in Peru? I thought the conversation was about the United States?

Looks a lot like Tijuana.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:34 am**

88 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:People working full time should live in housing like this....

and be happy with it.

Sincerely,
86'ed
Why did you post a picture taken in Peru? I thought the conversation was about the United States?

Do you take someone with you to court to draw pictures & flow charts for you so that you can understand simple arguments made by your opposition?

T1B

Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder

Re: Here's some shit to ponder