Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 yes. i can't imagine (although ?) republicans just rehashing the same tired trash in future generations. although they could get worse, personally i would like to see the cup half full. do you think it's possible we will ever have more than coke and pepsi? that would be great. (had to move my guns out of the house when the kids started walking around,, but still have my bokuto by the door ) A number of months ago some guy in his late 30s was sitting at a table next to me and my woman at a restaurant a friend of ours owns. The guy was loudly going on and on about how "Obama is only saying moderate things to appeal to the middle and get votes so when elected he will be able to run things on the left. Which is why if he is nominated I am voting for him." It annoyed me on so many levels, but mostly because politicians NEVER start parades. They look out their window see a parade forming, quickly run in front of it proclaiming, "I am the leader of this parade!" The past 30 years the parade has been corporate capitalism, while the rest of us were busy with both trivial and important things. Thus we've had a series of four blatant corporate presidencies. The bailouts and the golden handshakes to the executive class, I hope is the endcap to this... BUT there is no way in hell Obama will be the change people want, unless people form a parade for him to run to the front of. Back to my table with my woman, she says equally loud as the dude at the other table, "I'm voting for RC Cola!" For the past 4 years the exercise I play out in my mind has been "imagine beyond the binary." When I first considered this notion it was so far beyond my comprehension I actually put the quote on the Semaphore PCB and in the Semaphore's logo there are little flag men who are signing the same message. (Incidentally the irony that I put it on a pedal that goes ON-OFF-ON-OFF to this day makes me laugh.) Long story short, it is possible, just takes exercising the imagination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Nic , why vote then you know the score , long ago , it makes' no differ whos' face is on the zombie box sayin' all this and that , the results' are going to be the same , for the fact which , I know you are well aware of that then plan was implemented , thousands of years before we arrived. I'm not a passenger when somebody else's fear is driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Noticed that... I feel like those few ignorant, racist assholes give people with conservative to moderate views an incredibly bad name, the same way that one or two cult families who believe that if you dont believe as they do then you are an aide to satan and promote violence give Christianity a bad name... The same with extremist muslims giving normal, Islamic people a bad name... The problem is that it's senior members in your party who taint the collective. If I had to define myself politically, I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I'm for gay marriage and abortion, believe in government controleld sale of drugs, but I would adopt certain conservative financial policies. Telling people this gets a lot of interesting responses, mostly that they react to the word 'Conservative' in very stereotyped ways (ie. they assume I'm a church-going white boy who went to private school and I'd happily privatise everything). Of course politics has a place in this forum. It's a good conversational piece and some of the threads in this forum have been excellent. In a real life situation you would have some idea who you're conversing with, what their political leanings are, and how passionate they are about their opinions. If you knew that they were extremely passionate about their opinions, and you knew also that their opinions were the polar opposite of your own, you'd politely avoid political conversation, or at least avoid confrontation, in order to keep from spoiling the afternoon for everyone by arguing with them. After all, you're there to bowl or watch the ponies run. There are better times and better places for those conversations.Same thing with a music oriented forum. The likelihood of there being someone here whose political opinion is opposite of your own, and who is very passionate about their opinion, is virtually 100%. Any confrontation over politics is likely to affect the way that they interact with you in other threads.If I want to discuss politics, then I'll go to a political forum. Or, I could just talk to my family, since my brother and sister are equal and opposite distance from the political center. But HC is about music and gear and other stuff that most of us think of as interesting and fun, so I prefer to keep my conversations on that level. If anyone here decides to form any kind of opinion about me, I don't want my political views to have anything to do with that opinion.When people come to a music forum and discuss politics I think they're inviting other people to form opinions about them that have nothing to do with music. I just find it odd that people would do that. I see your point and I wonder if it is more prevalent in America to form opinions about people based on their political choices. In Europe, we're not at the same level of putting people into groups. We're not quite so polarised as America in my opinion. In a way, seeing what you write makes me sad. I have friends who have radically different opinions politically to me. We can go to parties and bars and talk politics without it ending in an argument. Is that not possible in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sunsetcarcrash Posted October 24, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Are you still on the thread? I am curious to know what issues or views make you identify with the Republicans? Mainly because I feel that with Obama, (and though I have cast my ballot for McCain, and still encourage others to do the same, I feel Barack has won already) we will take some of the largest strides towards Socialism since the Great Depression... and while Socialism (the theory behind it) sounds like a great idea, it doesnt play out that way in the real world, because a fair amount of normal people wont contribute... If everybody worked equally, it might succeed, but the fact of the matter is they wont... not to mention the loss of economic and political freedoms that must be taken to even attempt to make it work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Mainly because I feel that with Obama, (and though I have cast my ballot for McCain, and still encourage others to do the same, I feel Barack has won already) we will take some of the largest strides towards Socialism since the Great Depression... and while Socialism (the theory behind it) sounds like a great idea, it doesnt play out that way in the real world, because a fair amount of normal people wont contribute... If everybody worked equally, it might work, but the fact of the matter is they wont... not to mention the loss of economic and political freedoms that must be taken to even attempt to make it work... How so? Folks have been playing loose with the word socialism these days. I am not sure they know what it means. What does it mean to you? You said it doesn't work in the real world. Curious, where has it been tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mewithoutlouie Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 How so? Folks have been playing loose with the word socialism these days. I am not sure they know what it means. What does it mean to you? You said it doesn't work in the real world. Curious, where has it been tried? +1 socialism seemed to work when it came to the bailout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Mainly because I feel that with Obama, (and though I have cast my ballot for McCain, and still encourage others to do the same, I feel Barack has won already) we will take some of the largest strides towards Socialism since the Great Depression... and while Socialism (the theory behind it) sounds like a great idea, it doesnt play out that way in the real world, because a fair amount of normal people wont contribute... If everybody worked equally, it might succeed, but the fact of the matter is they wont... not to mention the loss of economic and political freedoms that must be taken to even attempt to make it work... I always love this argument. 1. There are alot of countries with varying degrees of socialism throughout the world. Look at Europe for crying out loud. Their standards of living and economies are playing out pretty well "in the real world". 2. On the other hand, capitalism sounds like a bad idea and is pretty much playing out that way. Maybe we should try something that sounds good to start off with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 +1 socialism seemed to work when it came to the bailout. Thats not really socialism. It sounds funny to call it that though. Crony Capitalism yes. Just an extension of the corporate model anyway. Privatize profits, externalize costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fender&EHX4ever Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I rarely, if ever, have read or heard a Republican opinion on national priorities concerning healthcare reform, transportation and energy reform, environmental protection, or war that I've agreed with. I've spoken with many Republicans who are downright offensive in their opinions, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with their views is un-American, socialist, communist, hippie, and all that crap. I would be much more tolerant of the Republican party if I heard that bull{censored} a lot less. Having lived most of my life in Indiana and Florida, believe me, I've heard enough to be sick of it. That said, I love my country, and will do what I need to make it a better place; so congrats on your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sunsetcarcrash Posted October 24, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I understand socialism to be government administration/regulation of the means of production and government administration/regulation of the distribution of wealth... Which it seems to me Sen. Obama would be doing when he says he will "Spread the wealth around", andtaxing buisinesses that make over 250,000 a year. Economic equality might not sound so bad if everyone were putting an equal amount in, but by giving tax cut to 95% of Americans when about 70 something % pay income taxes to begin with just seems a little unfair to me... IIRC Hungary and China have both attempted to maintain a socialistic economy durring their communist days... I think there were more, but i cant remember who... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I always love this argument. 1. There are alot of countries with varying degrees of socialism throughout the world. Look at Europe for crying out loud. Their standards of living and economies are playing out pretty well "in the real world".2. On the other hand, capitalism sounds like a bad idea and is pretty much playing out that way. Maybe we should try something that sounds good to start off with? Take Iceland and its financial situation. Great standard of living, firm belief in socialist principles yet their banking system went to {censored} through capitalist and commercial greed. Ironically it could be a firm test of how well socialism does stand up in the real world. Redundancies will happen over there and the socialist support network will be forced to pick up the pieces. Within my position in local government, there are massive structural changes and it's been leading by the Corporate team. One of the burning quesitons I raised this week at the bi-annual Corporate Team day was 'With all the self-promotion of how becoming more corporate is good for this council, don't you ever look around at the world news and wonder if being so corporate is actually a good thing?'. Socialism can be corrupted by human greed, same as religion, sport, capitalism, Little League, anything. But go and watch CNN. When do you see socialist issues being raised? Pretty much the only time you'll see anything vaguely socialist/liberal on the main news is the charities and relief agencies picking up the pieces after some natural disaster or famine. You can't blame socialism for Enron, the Iraq war, Lehman Brothers, 9/11, etc etc. The greatest problem I see in America is that the politicians have gotten a lot of people thinking in very polarised terms. It's black and white thinking, you and them, with us or against us, liberal or conservative. {censored} that. For the world to move forward, you have to think in terms of the grey shades, not black and white polarised bull{censored} where you take some party line purely because that's how you think you should act or think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I understand socialism to be government administration/regulation of the means of production and government administration/regulation of the distribution of wealth... Which it seems to me Sen. Obama would be doing when he says he will "Spread the wealth around", andtaxing buisinesses that make over 250,000 a year. Economic equality might not sound so bad if everyone were putting an equal amount in, but by giving tax cut to 95% of Americans when about 70 something % pay income taxes to begin with just seems a little unfair to me... IIRC Hungary and China have both attempted to maintain a socialistic economy durring their communist days... I think there were more, but i cant remember who... What you are describing as socialistic in Obama's tax plan is something that pretty much every first world country does, i.e. tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor & middle class. It's not that revolutionary or strange and it works all around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sunsetcarcrash Posted October 24, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Take Iceland and its financial situation. Great standard of living, firm belief in socialist principles yet their banking system went to {censored} through capitalist and commercial greed. Ironically it could be a firm test of how well socialism does stand up in the real world. Redundancies will happen over there and the socialist support network will be forced to pick up the pieces. Within my position in local government, there are massive structural changes and it's been leading by the Corporate team. One of the burning quesitons I raised this week at the bi-annual Corporate Team day was 'With all the self-promotion of how becoming more corporate is good for this council, don't you ever look around at the world news and wonder if being so corporate is actually a good thing?'. Socialism can be corrupted by human greed, same as religion, sport, capitalism, Little League, anything. But go and watch CNN. When do you see socialist issues being raised? Pretty much the only time you'll see anything vaguely socialist/liberal on the main news is the charities and relief agencies picking up the pieces after some natural disaster or famine. You can't blame socialism for Enron, the Iraq war, Lehman Brothers, 9/11, etc etc. The greatest problem I see in America is that the politicians have gotten a lot of people thinking in very polarised terms. It's black and white thinking, you and them, with us or against us, liberal or conservative. {censored} that. For the world to move forward, you have to think in terms of the grey shades, not black and white polarised bull{censored} where you take some party line purely because that's how you think you should act or think. Im not exactly sure what you are arguing... But you should definately write punk songs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I'm arguing that one of the things that holds America back is the way 9/11 took it back into describing people by strictly regimented lines. Bush summed it up with 'You're with us or against us'. There was no grey area. You were friend or enemy. That feeling was pushed into the political arena and reinforced the fake boundaries and lines political strategists create in order to make the electorate feel that they are part of something that is against something else. Watching CNN, that feeling is reinforced. I'll never forget the day when a commentator in the US said that people in the Uk were protesting against Bush's war campaign because we're mostly Marxist over here Marxist?!? Even a git like Nixon admitted that he did have some policies that were on the liberal/socialist side. When someone like Nixon looks fairly open-minded compared to the last eight years, then you have to worry. What's worrying for me as a Brit is that America sets the electoral precedent. We tend to follow a few years later. Thatcher came about after Nixon's era ended, and I do think the two are very comparable. The more simple politics of Jimmy Carter have a certainly similarity to John Major and his notion of 'the classless society' (and boy does my society lack class now. Ho ho). Bill Clinton was definitely a political role model for Tony Blair. So with this in mind, what the {censored} are we going to end up with in 2009 for the British Elections? The Uk verison of Bush? You can laugh but you've already had the test run in the London Mayoral campaign. Boris Johnson got in with the help of those Australian strategists that kept John Howard in power for so long. It really doesn't bode well for us lot. Sunsetcarcrash, if you take the position, then I would implore you to look beyond the politics of your party and those around you. if you want to see real issues, get a part-time job working with immigants on the black market ie. the jobs that pay cash in hand, no taxes to pay, no benefits etc. Don't waste time voting against abortion and inconsequential {censored} that doesn't matter. Go and find issues that affect thousands and thousands of people and learn about them first hand. And if you end up dating one of Bush's daughters, we all want the details on what she's like in the sack. If she ever starts playing kinky games where she plays the naughty daughter and calls you Daddy, run for the hills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fender&EHX4ever Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I find vulgarity in the notion that the only motivator for working hard in life is the possibility of making a salary of $250k or more, and that this is the only reliable motivator for a society to thrive and be healthy. The very basis of that theory is cynical and not at all evolved. I'm not anti-capitalist, but I also find it suspect that so many people are so quick to pledge their existence to it. I agree that there is an unexplored shade of gray where the answer lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HeartfeltDawn Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I find vulgarity in the notion that the only motivator for working hard in life is the possibility of making a salary of $250k or more, and that this is the only reliable motivator for a society to thrive and be healthy. The very basis of that theory is cynical and not at all evolved. I'm not anti-capitalist, but I also find it suspect that so many people are so quick to pledge their existence to it. I agree that there is an unexplored shade of gray where the answer lies. Salary being the sole motivator is drummed into people from an early age. You can look at how higher education has changed. The notion that you go to university to study for the sake of intellectualism and the love of learning has been pretty much eradicated in the mainstream and is slowly being squished out of the like of Oxford and Cambridge here in the UK. Instead, university education is seen as a platform for work and nothing more. Consequently, we don't have the same level of artistic brilliance coming out of universities as we did. Throw that sort of thing alongside the mass of advertising we all go through and how obtaining new goods is seen as some road to salvation. to buy things, you need money. To buy the best, you need more money. To get more money, you need more education so you go to university. You crank up huge debts so you need to work in any job to pay them off. Sometimes I wish for WWIII just so we could maybe start afresh and start again with a new set of values and beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members melx Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 Socialism to me means: The National Health Service. Housing provided by councils for the low waged. University education available via a school grant system. Free milk in schools for all children. Public services in public ownership. De-privitisation of public utilities. Rights of workers supported through trade unions. Welfare for people that need it. I grew up watching most of these things being totally destroyed by Thatcher's government....... I also support a fairly high minimum wage. I think everyone has the right to be paid a wage they can live on if they are doing a full time job.....I think road sweeping, refuge collection, operating public transport etc.. is just important to a healthy society than other 'well paid' jobs' ......if not more than some. on social and religious issues, i'm probably about as far left as you can go on most things. I don't know if this makes me a socialist, if I have to call myself anything I'd consider myself a Humanist....ie truth and morality sought through human investigation and the focusing on our capacity for self-determination. I believe in the good in every living thing, I believe it is our society, greed capitalism, religion, television...etc that stops us from reaching our true potential of beings that can live co-operatively with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fender&EHX4ever Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 IMO, promoting the dream of being a billionaire as a core value is just as destructive to the health of a society as taking away the opportunity of being a billionaire. Both are extreme, and neither work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HopeStreet Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 bull{censored}.partys can change.republicans were formed to stop slavery, now they're for big biz.democrats used to be the party of the the klan and the confederacy, now they have a black candidate.like i said,wat this is completely irrelevant."these people used to not be down for slavery,now they participate in modern day slavery.these people used to hate black people,now they have a black leader,not that that changes anything politically at all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I understand socialism to be government administration/regulation of the means of production and government administration/regulation of the distribution of wealth... Which it seems to me Sen. Obama would be doing when he says he will "Spread the wealth around", andtaxing buisinesses that make over 250,000 a year. Economic equality might not sound so bad if everyone were putting an equal amount in, but by giving tax cut to 95% of Americans when about 70 something % pay income taxes to begin with just seems a little unfair to me... IIRC Hungary and China have both attempted to maintain a socialistic economy durring their communist days... I think there were more, but i cant remember who... Wow there is a lot to unpack here. "Spread the wealth around" basically means the opposite has been happening for at least the past 8 years, trickle down economics which leads to what we are currently experiencing. Obama may or may not say this but I will, it's been longer than 8 years. Since 1972 real wages have been on constant decline. Warren Buffett is a capitalist. He is not a socialist. And he is a very big Obama supporter. Seems to me the richest man in the USA would stand to lose big in a socialist state. Buffett simply realizes that the role of government is to define the rules in which the game of capital is played... Would you watch a football game that had no rules? As far as Obama's tax cut. Here is a calculator: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/ I put in earnings of $150,000-$200,000 (for the sake of discussion) I get a $34 tax cut under Obama, McCain gives me $0. Most people gross and small business net under $200,000. So what does this mean to normal people? We actually get money back. What does it mean to people who have more than they need? I guess they will have to pay more. If we are intellectually consistent, these people are the ones who benefit MOST from having an infrastructure to get goods and services to market, a pool of employees who can read, a court system to defend contracts, a stable currency to count on... All of which are paid for by tax revenue. Back to Warren Buffett. He has said, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jorhay1 Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 this is completely irrelevant."these people used to not be down for slavery,now they participate in modern day slavery.these people used to hate black people,now they have a black leader,not that that changes anything politically at all." i see your point.fair enough.i just believe that some, not all, things can change politically for the better,and i have some optimism for the future. imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sunsetcarcrash Posted October 24, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I see where you are coming from, but I dont believe it should be up to the "government to define the rules"... That is what socialism is, or am i mistaken? I am not trying to be a smartass, I really just dont get it... BTW... I tried out a Semaphore Tremolo, and it is the most amazing Trem I have ever tried... Definately replacing my Seektrem once i get one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HopeStreet Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 i see your point.fair enough.i just believe that some, not all, things can change politically for the better,and i have some optimism for the future.imho oh yeah,optimistic?yes.have confidence in the current system?hell no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I see where you are coming from, but I dont believe it should be up to the "government to define the rules"... That is what socialism is, or am i mistaken? I am not trying to be a smartass, I really just dont get it... BTW... I tried out a Semaphore Tremolo, and it is the most amazing Trem I have ever tried... Definately replacing my Seektrem once i get one... I understand you're not being a smart ass. Would you agree that government is responsible for making the rules which citizens behave... For example making laws that restrict and prevent, pedophiles, rapists, bank robbers, murders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Turd Furgison Posted October 24, 2008 Members Share Posted October 24, 2008 I understand you're not being a smart ass. Would you agree that government is responsible for making the rules which citizens behave... For example making laws that restrict and prevent, pedophiles, rapists, bank robbers, murders? i would think a better example would be the FDA - look what has happened with the "food" in china when businesses 'regulate' themselves. same thing happened here about 100 years ago, read the jungle by upton sinclair. it is unfortunate that government intervention is necessary to make sure an even playing field that benefits everyone is provided, but people seem to show time and again they will gladly take advantage of those around them for their own personal gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.