Analyzing Kerry's acceptance speech...
-
Well when schools are litterally "falling apart," cause money isn't there to repair them, you have problems. If teachers were treated with the rock star like admiration that "criminal atheletes" are treated to, things would be different. Money IS an issue. If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers. When teachers have to spend their own money for supplies for students, money is a problem. If a school has outdated books because there aren't the funds to buy new ones, that's a problem. But why fix this? This way there will always be a class of people who will turn to the military for their chance to make it in the world while the wealthy can stay in good paying careers and have "other priorities." This way the poor go off to fight wars, get killed or mutilated and the upper class need not get its hands dirty while it profits from the death and decapitation of the poor. Then Bush can say, "oh we APPRECIATE" your sacrifice. Hey I really appreciate that you got your face blown off or your arms blown off so I didn't have too. LOL! The joke's on you POOR SUCKER!!! ;)
adonisv wrote: If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers do you know what the pay scale is? I know junior high school teachers who make 60k - 75k per year. is that bad? the reason many qualified people don't teach is the politically correct nature of the classroom. discipline is not allowed and attempting to get rid of a problem kid that disrupts everything takes an act of God. It is a thankless job, if a teacher fails a kid the teacher gets into trouble. These, along with the fact that parents that don't do their job is the reason for school problems, not a lack of money. if parents do their job, kids can be taught in a tent with a lantern for light. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
adonisv wrote: If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers do you know what the pay scale is? I know junior high school teachers who make 60k - 75k per year. is that bad? the reason many qualified people don't teach is the politically correct nature of the classroom. discipline is not allowed and attempting to get rid of a problem kid that disrupts everything takes an act of God. It is a thankless job, if a teacher fails a kid the teacher gets into trouble. These, along with the fact that parents that don't do their job is the reason for school problems, not a lack of money. if parents do their job, kids can be taught in a tent with a lantern for light. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
adonisv wrote: cause money isn't there... adonisv wrote: Money IS an issue. If teachers were highly paid... adonisv wrote: ...money is a problem. adonisv wrote: ...there aren't the funds... Didja ever consider that maybe the government bureaucracy is wasting education money and that throwing more money at it is even more wasteful and unlikely to fix the core problem? "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
-
Why do people always point out the exception and generalize from there? Most teachers don't make 60k. Even if they DID, what does that football coach at that school make? Get it now?
adonisv wrote: what does that football coach at that school make? Get it now? the same. I was referring to my brother who happens to teach history, life sciences and coaches both football and basketball. To get to the current pay level he had to get a masters, but he did it and he makes a damn good living especially considering the 6 to 8 weeks off each year. That doesn't even speak to his pension. After 33 years of teaching he'll get roughly 75% of the average of his highest 3 years pay as an annual pension. I repeat, money is not the problem. Parents are. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
adonisv wrote: Your solution is? the solution is: 1) vouchers so kids can leave poorly performing schools, 2) parents that teach their kids the value of learning, 3) government that stays out of the classroom, 4) the destruction of teacher's unions, 5) parents (again) who pay attention to their kids schoolwork. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
-
1.) Severly reducing or eliminating government bureaucracy. 2.) Severly reducing or eliminating the politically correct BS in schools. 3.) Allowing teachers and administrators more latitude in punishing/removing disruptive students. 4a.) Holding teachers and administrators accountable for poor student achievement. 4b.) Pay bonuses for exceptional student achievement. 5a.) Hold administrators responsible for budget overruns. 5b.) Pay bonuses for budget efficiency. At a college/university level I would totally eliminate athletic scholarships and reduce nearly all sports to intramural. Let the NBA and NFL fund their own minor leagues. Just a few thoughts, some of which need "fleshing out" before implementation. "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Abe Lincoln fought as a Captain in the Blackhawk war. Does that also make him a bad boy also. Dude, I helped bomb Iraq in '96. I probably helped kill people. Put that in context, and get back to me. Richard Stringer wrote: This is ,I hope ,your own opinion. Well, I meant the current Federal Government and the CPD. I don't think the entire USA is a hypocrisy. Although, most practice it everyday. Am I the only one? "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli Later, JoeSox "If it weren't for baseball, many kids wouldn't know what a millionaire looked like." --Phyllis Diller joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Dude, I helped bomb Iraq in '96. I probably helped kill people. Put that in context, and get back to me. Well unless you were a pilot or AC you were a ground wienie in a rear echelon position and that "really" doesn't count now does it. You probably helped kill more people by spreading a cold virus around. My son was there in the 82'd Airborne ( my old unit ). He said it really wasn't much of a war from his aspect but hey -- I wish Nam was that kinda deal. But then again bragging about ones "war experiences" is best left to those who were involved. No one else would or can understand it. Don't understand the revelance however as to how the context of historical facts relate to your "war" experience. JoeSox wrote: A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli Quotes!! You want quotes: Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that. --William J. Clinton - Bill Clinton Can government really be active and, at the same time, limited? History suggests otherwise. --Lew Rockwell Politics is more difficult than physics --Albert Einstein Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them. --Lily Tomlin and finally one to ponder: The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they are okay, then it's you. --Rita Mae Brown Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Yeah, thats the point exactly Man can't get nothin by you can we?
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
There is no liberal Democrat alive who can get anything by me - or any other thinking human being. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
adonisv wrote: Your solution is? the solution is: 1) vouchers so kids can leave poorly performing schools, 2) parents that teach their kids the value of learning, 3) government that stays out of the classroom, 4) the destruction of teacher's unions, 5) parents (again) who pay attention to their kids schoolwork. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
-
1.) Severly reducing or eliminating government bureaucracy. 2.) Severly reducing or eliminating the politically correct BS in schools. 3.) Allowing teachers and administrators more latitude in punishing/removing disruptive students. 4a.) Holding teachers and administrators accountable for poor student achievement. 4b.) Pay bonuses for exceptional student achievement. 5a.) Hold administrators responsible for budget overruns. 5b.) Pay bonuses for budget efficiency. At a college/university level I would totally eliminate athletic scholarships and reduce nearly all sports to intramural. Let the NBA and NFL fund their own minor leagues. Just a few thoughts, some of which need "fleshing out" before implementation. "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" :omg: What is "exceptional student acheivement?" If I'm a really good at tests, going in, does the teacher get a bonus? Don't you mean "applied knowledge" not just great SCORES? I agree with your view on sports, its really just glorified P.E. :~
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well what are the intellectual origins of modern "liberal" principles? one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. just skim the speech i link to; you'll find an interesting mix of modern liberalism, federalism and libertariantism. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the centralized social control political systems exercise today, Jefferson or Marx? Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not solely the fault of the left. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the promotion of a secualar society by government Jefferson or Marx? that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx?
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevan
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
Stan Shannon wrote: All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Stan Shannon wrote: Just because the left found no way of implementing Marx in the pure sense, doesn't mean they are not still devoted to experimenting with the essential elements of that philosophy. no Democrats are interested in experimenting with the essential elements of Marxism because the essential elements of Marxism are absurd, alien and silly. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day leave the goalposts where they are: you weren't referring to "income tax" either. you said "Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx? ". the quotes i provided demonstrate that he was comfortable of the idea that those who could afford to pay more "should". Stan Shannon wrote: If you are suggesting we return to a pre-income tax, Jeffersonian, policy of funding the government, I'll be more than happy to comply. i'm not. this is the 20th century, not the 18th. Stan Shannon wrote: Marx himself would have probably made similar adjustments to his own philosphies had he lived to see the consequencies of the early experiments with it. well, ya got me there. i can't dispute the actions of a Marx from an alternate universe that exists only in your imagination. Software | Cleek
-
-
When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" :omg: What is "exceptional student acheivement?" If I'm a really good at tests, going in, does the teacher get a bonus? Don't you mean "applied knowledge" not just great SCORES? I agree with your view on sports, its really just glorified P.E. :~
adonisv wrote: When we talk about "removing BS," are we including the "abstinence only," BS and the refusal to teach evolution? What about teaching "sex education?" In my scenario government bureaucracy is gone so what is removed and what is taught is determined by local school boards. Face it - what flies in New York, NY may not fly in Jerkwater, AL. Each community decides what gets taught in their schools. Their children (and only their children) must live with the consequences. adonisv wrote: Would this include the reinstatement of the P.E. class "dodgeball?" I hope so, I loved dodgeball. :cool: adonisv wrote: What is "exceptional student acheivement? Again, each community (thru it's local school board) decides what metrics are used. "The gay marriage thing scared me, but that's only because I thought at first it was mandatory." Jon Stewart
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Chris Losinger wrote: one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. Chris Losinger wrote: Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". So far, which is why the left is trying so hard. Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not the fault of the left. Actually it is almost completely the fault of the left (not to defend the Republicans in that regard) Chris Losinger wrote: that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". yeah, it is. Christ, its the largest component of their social agenda. Chris Losinger wrote: "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevant to Marx, in the long run. Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it
Stan Shannon wrote: "What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it based on this: Maybe you can surmise that from those two quotes, the one you posted from 1801 and the one Chris posted from 1811. But in my opinion your supposition makes no sense. Those two quotes in chronological order would seem to indicate the Jefferson was talking exactly about what Kerry proposed for a Tax Plan. Of course you have to also account for the difference in time. I mean life in 1811 vs life in 2004. Jefferson was talking about infrastructure of the day, roads and schools etc. Our needs are vastly more and complex today in comparison and I for one believe that unlike you Jefferson would be smart enough to understand that. I see no proof of your hypothesis in the quotes offered in this thread. If anything it is easier to surmise that he would have eventually conceded to the necessity of income tax in modern times to enable the government to continue supplying the infrastructure support that he clearly favored in 1811.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well what are the intellectual origins of modern "liberal" principles? one of the main roots is definitely the 1910's progressive populism of people like Teddy Roosevelt - who advocated for things like government imposed safety standards, living wages, business regulation, environmental conservation, etc.. just skim the speech i link to; you'll find an interesting mix of modern liberalism, federalism and libertariantism. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the centralized social control political systems exercise today, Jefferson or Marx? Marx would probably vomit if you called the current American govt system "Marxist". Jefferson would probably do the same if you told him this is what he wrought. but that's not solely the fault of the left. Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with the promotion of a secualar society by government Jefferson or Marx? that's a meaningless question, since the left isn't promoting a "secular society". Stan Shannon wrote: Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx?
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Marx believed that taxes could destroy capitalism, and that they could also be used to perpetuate it, depending on the rates. But since his goal wasn't simply to destroy capitalism but to replace it with a system where there wouldn't be any "rich" people to tax at a high rate, taxes are kindof irrelevan
So what's the deal? Did you major in Political Science or something? You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME! :) Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
adonisv wrote: If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers do you know what the pay scale is? I know junior high school teachers who make 60k - 75k per year. is that bad? the reason many qualified people don't teach is the politically correct nature of the classroom. discipline is not allowed and attempting to get rid of a problem kid that disrupts everything takes an act of God. It is a thankless job, if a teacher fails a kid the teacher gets into trouble. These, along with the fact that parents that don't do their job is the reason for school problems, not a lack of money. if parents do their job, kids can be taught in a tent with a lantern for light. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: do you know what the pay scale is? Well I am no Chris Losinger :laugh: but even I could do this one ;P http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm[^] Median annual earnings of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $39,810 to $44,340 in 2002; the lowest 10 percent earned $24,960 to $29,850; the top 10 percent earned $62,890 to $68,530. Median earnings for preschool teachers were $19,270. According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $30,719 in the 2001–02 school year. The estimated average salary of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the 2001–02 school year was $44,367. Private school teachers generally earn less than public school teachers.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
Stan Shannon wrote: All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Stan Shannon wrote: Just because the left found no way of implementing Marx in the pure sense, doesn't mean they are not still devoted to experimenting with the essential elements of that philosophy. no Democrats are interested in experimenting with the essential elements of Marxism because the essential elements of Marxism are absurd, alien and silly. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day leave the goalposts where they are: you weren't referring to "income tax" either. you said "Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx? ". the quotes i provided demonstrate that he was comfortable of the idea that those who could afford to pay more "should". Stan Shannon wrote: If you are suggesting we return to a pre-income tax, Jeffersonian, policy of funding the government, I'll be more than happy to comply. i'm not. this is the 20th century, not the 18th. Stan Shannon wrote: Marx himself would have probably made similar adjustments to his own philosphies had he lived to see the consequencies of the early experiments with it. well, ya got me there. i can't dispute the actions of a Marx from an alternate universe that exists only in your imagination. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Of course, I agree with that. I'm merely trying to establish that there are two general political themes competing for supremacy today. One, growing out of a genrally Marxist set of principles, promotes the notion that centralized political power serves a positive good within human society. And another, arising primarily from the core Jeffersonian principles the U.S. was founded upon, promotes a decentralized, anti-federalist, pro-indiviualist, pro-private property set of principles. These two philosophies represent the current political extremes of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. I am an extremist in the sense that I believe the centralization of social and economic power in the hands of a federal politcal system is inherently dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. I vote for 'conservatives' and republicans, not because I agree with many of their principles, but merely because they establish a means of opposing the most dangerous politcal agenda on the planet today. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
So what's the deal? Did you major in Political Science or something? You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME! :) Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
palbano wrote: Did you major in Political Science or something? hell no. i majored in Computer Science! the only science that matters. :) palbano wrote: You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME one positive (???) effect GWB has had on me is to get me deeply interested in current politics. four years ago i didn't give a crap about it, didn't pay attention, didn't think there was any real difference between the two major parties as far as my everyday life was concerned, would've voted for Nader if he was on the NC ballot just cause I thought it'd be fun to shake things up. i knew about the old stuff from high school and college, but wasn't really interested in the current stuff because it seemed so removed from my daily life. 9/11 and W's actions afterwards got me to pay attention. palbano wrote: Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? just IE. those blogs can really teach you a lot. some of them are pretty serious discussions by pretty smart people: Josh Marshall (foreign policy from a left-leaning journalist) Tacitus (military and foreign policy with a rightward slant) Calpundit/Political Animal (lefty politics) Volokh (legal analysis from the right) Crooked Timber (serious philosophy from the left) Max Sawicky (serious economics with a lefty political slant) Matt Yglesias (philosophy and centrist politcs) Whiskey Bar (lefty politics) some of them are just red meat/hot topics: Atrios, KOS. excellent for learning about the outrage of the day. and some are brutally funny shredding of rightwing nonsense: tbogg, World O' Crap, Pandagon of course, there are rightwing equivalents to all of those, too. start with Instapundit. and, of course Google. but mostly... i love to argue, and that means i need to have facts in my quiver. if you go into a place like Tacitus or Yglesias unarmed, you get ripped up pretty quickly :) Software | Cleek