Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What the next 4 years are going to look like

page: 19
51
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
As a college level social sciences instructor I feel that I have my work cut out for me over the next four years. If so many people could be so easily fooled by what media-heads were telling them, then that means they did not learn well how to think for themselves and apply critical thinking to whatever they were hearing or reading. Sometimes I have students in my class who managed to get that far without being able to read. I have to teach them to read at the same time I am trying to give them more skills to think with. I don't subscribe to "education is broken" because for every one of these cases there are 10 students who do get it and can use it and end up being valuable voices for all sides of the political spectrum. But those few who remain deficient just end up being resentful and paranoid. I have to work harder with them. I am happy to do it if it means there will be a few less voters who feel like deer caught in the headlights when what they were told turns out it be nothing but lies that padded the liars' pockets.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DondeEsta?
 


I think by the criterion you have expressed, you prove yourself to be delusional.

While. Oth parties have their problem and weaknesses, there are very clear differences, and there always will be.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kali74
 


Education is already socialized. That happened when the American public was forced to support public education. The only difference is that some private industry is allowed to flourish. Unless you were referring to higher education.


Education of any kind is not socialized in America. Public education of grades K-12 falls under the Federal Government, while that makes it tax payer funded it does not make it socialized... there is a major difference but I will leave you to figure out what that difference is. As public education stands now at least it is something.


My dear, what would make public education "socialized" then? I'd love for you to answer that.

Here, American Thinker already did....nothing


During the recent Fox News and Google presidential debate, Ron Paul opined to the crowd, "You ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want." Although he could have been drawing comparisons between Obamacare and European socialized medicine, the congressman was actually referencing America's socialized educational system. It was a brilliant point. Just as the "public option" is merely a different term for socialized medicine, public education is simply a euphemized phrase for socialized education.
In the early 1800s, Horace Mann led a movement to replace America's community and parent-controlled school model with Prussian-style public schools. He believed that free education was a right and demeaned religious institutions that already made education available.



Mann's vision was originally met with strong resistance, as parents were reluctant to cede control of their children's education to government bureaucrats. Ultimately, a compulsory attendance mandate was passed -- not unlike the individual mandate found in Obamacare. Shortly afterward, private schools began to close.


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...


However, as we all know, "free education" isn't free, but subsidized through tax levies on all citizens -- even those with no school-age children and those who have chosen to educate their children privately. Herein lies the genius of the left: by dictating the funding of government-run education and health care programs, millions of families are left with few alternatives outside the government's control. Although the right to enroll their children in private schools remains, this "right," for all practical purposes, often cannot be exercised due to income limitations.

www.americanthinker.com...





As public education stands now at least it is something.

Sure it is! It is taxpayer funded and mandatory. The only way to opt out is to pay tuition for private school or to homeschool while still paying the taxes for it. How fair is that? Even today the socialist bureaucrats are trying to stop parents from homeschooling because they know that it will stem the brainwashing techniques used, such as values clarification and behavior modification and other methods for controlling what children think.

Not only that, but if you get caught not attending school, you get hauled off by the cops for truancy
edit on 21-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 




The republican party of Lincoln is not the republican party of Reagan.

The Dixiecrat states of old that believed in and practiced Slavery, opposed abolishment of slavery, and women's rights are now the reddest of states, the most loyal to republicans and conservatives.

Roosevelt created internment camps, not concentration camps, not one was burned up in ovens, and this was supported by republicans at the time.

Truman chose to drop the bomb, and he had plenty of republican support. The people who hate the US like to bring up this point, and ignore that the Japanese were the aggressors in WW II, and that dropping the atomic bomb most likely saved far more lives than were taken.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Being burned in ovens alone does not a gulag make. The Russians had gulags where people were worked to death and given just enough food to keep them from dropping into the death bed so they could continue working. That is what built their industrial empire for them, not free enterprise.

Why would you want to make the distinction between being burned and just being held against your will for political reasons?
Is this part of your attempt to paint some people as fascist and therefore right wing, and paint the socialists(FDR) as caring humans?
Leftists use war just like anyone else does, to achieve their goals, they just try to make everyone think it's for their own good (nanny statism) and that their goals are humanitarian.




The people who hate the US like to bring up this point, and ignore that the Japanese were the aggressors


Yes, I do think you have made a valid point here, some people do hate the US and thus are always trying to make it out like everything is our fault and that we are terrible warmongers and go around occupying countries. FDR was a socialistic President, and used all kinds of means to an end. And he was also a 33rd degree mason from what I have read.
Yes, Japan was the aggressor. It is said also that some of our guys cracked codes and FDR knew of the attack but let it happen.
Also you ought to read up on abolitionism instead of promoting a false idea that Southern Democrats became racist Republicans and vice versa.


The Liberals’ Dixiecrat myth goes something like this: In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. In 1968, the racist segregationist southern Democrats became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all the Dixiecrats had already become racist segregationist southern Republicans. During this same time, the integrationist race-blind southern Republicans up and decided to become southern Democrats. It had to be completed by 1980 because Ronald Reagan.

www.conservapedia.com...

Abolitionism was promoted by Christians

www.conservapedia.com...
edit on 21-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


American education isn't socialized?

What?

Spending billions upon billions of other peoples money and get nothing back out of it?

Sure sounds like socialized to me.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


And calling for more money to be spent because spending money isn't working. Sounds like the stimulus.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That would be because neither of you understand Socialism, you got your ideologies from FOX and learned of others from the same source.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Libs said for 8 years that Bush was a fascist. Many people have said we might not have elections. I personally think Barak will not want to give up the power. But it's more, it's the whole Totalitarian machine picking up speed like a runaway train.


Sooo...you didn't address my questions. In your post back to me first you say you don't believe Obama will have a third term, then you say what you say above, indicating it is your belief. You also say "libs" said 8 years of Bush was fascist, ignoring your own CFR/Kissinger ties to Bush. So you are ok with the New World Order as long as they are Republicans. Ok then.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96
 


That would be because neither of you understand Socialism, you got your ideologies from FOX and learned of others from the same source.


You keep trying to insult both of us by saying things like this, but the facts show it is you who does not know what socialism is. I do not get my facts and information from Fox news. I knew about socialism sine the 70's.

Even when given textbook definitions of socialism and communism you and others here refuse to accept the truth.

Since you think you know so much about socialism, why don't you tell us in your own words what you think it is.

I will help you out with an excerpt from my college ECON textbook by Stephen L Slavin, called Economics 7th edition''p 81
"Furthermore, Marx observed that one's social consciousness was determined by one's relatiopnship to the means of production. Inevitably, he BELIEVED, there would be a clash between the capitalists and the workers, leading to an OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM and the establishment of a COMMUNIST society. Then the workers would own the means of production. In the Soviet Union, incidentally, the means of production WERE owned by the workers, but the RULING ELITE, the TOP COMMUNIST PARTY officials, had real economic and political control."
Now we know from all the literature that Marx, Engels, and Lenin all said that socialism was the means to the end of establishing communism and that it was merely the bridge to it.

I have told you and others here multiple times with historical and textbook backup but still you insist that I do not know what I am talking about.
Socialism and communism both have as their main doctrine the redistribution of wealth and abolition of private property, but in a socialist system, some private industry is left in place.
I don't know what part of that you don't understand but I am not going to keep telling you. You should know it by now and you refuse for some reason. I don't know if it's for propaganda purposes or you just don't know.
The fact that the US still has some mixed economic systems in place does not mean we do not have socialism. We do, but it's mixed up with other economic systems and factors. This is the meaning of a "mixed economy:"
edit on 21-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


"What history?"

American history...

"Until such time as you can back that up with substance, I suggest that you just made that up from an uneducated opinion or possibly revisionist history ala DSA."

"You suggest?" Okay that's fine, "suggest" what you want... I guess.

I am not going to attempt to "prove" that Abraham Lincoln was a corrupt man because many here in Murica simply will not listen to any kind of reasoning. However, I will suggest that you do a little bit of reading into the history of the man before he was the second Republican to run for and first Republican to hold office. Anyone who knows ANYTHING outside of what the media shoves down our throats about U.S. history knows that Lincoln himself never once denied that he felt that black people were nothing more than possessions and that his reasoning for being anti-slavery was because of his political stance on industry and white labor. Whether it was "right" or not to have slaves wasn't the main issue of the Civil War...

Ever hear of a man named John Brown? Most don't. They do however know of a man by the name of David Crockett. Funny how that works. One is very well known to the U.S even today and the other is hardy ever mentioned. Even though nobody knows why David is "important" or what he really did outside of "fighting in the Alamo." Most don't even know that the Alamo was about the expansion of slavery, which David fought for and supported.

John Brown was an abolitionist who was hanged for treason for raiding a federal armory in attempt to arm and free a very large amount of slaves. He had nothing to gain, politically speaking, from doing so. He also had far less blood on his hands and was responsible for nowhere near as many American deaths as Mr. Lincoln.

If you believe the word of an "uneducated" socialist who voted for Gary Johnson that is . . .

Speaking of education...

I like Ron Paul, I really do. That doesn't mean I agree with him about everything and his stance on education is actually one of those things that I do not agree with, simply because the guy never offered any kind of solution to the problem. He just kept saying that it was a problem. Really, our education system is a problem? That's great, I agree entirely! How would you advise we go about solving that "problem?"

Eliminating the entire system? Well what should we do to fix it? Only have private schools that those who have enough money to send their children to can afford? Well isn't that just dandy! People like myself would be screwed but who cares, we're just some stupid poor kids...

Do you really think that those living in the projects and trailer parks across America would bother to teach their children anything? If you do then you must not have never had the misfortune of living in such a place. unfortunately for me, I have. If the government didn't threaten to " send their ass to jail" if the kids aren't going to school, do you think many of them would make those children go to school? My parents, who were much less neglectful than many in that environment, sure as hell wouldn't have.

That being said, I would completely agree that something NEEDS to be done about our dumbed down piss-poor "education system" in this country. But that something is not an elimination and replacing with "home schooling" and private education because that would leave A LOT of innocent children behind. Should you chose to believe it or not, the portion of American children that would be left behind in such a situation is indeed significant! Had it not been for public education I would have never learned how to read, admittedly the only thing our screwed up system ever really taught me. However, that learning how to read part did provide me with that which was necessary to teach myself everything else. Something that would not have happened had it not been for the fact that my parents were being "forced" to send me to school.

You think generational poverty is a problem now? Well... Imagine how much worse it would get if those people didn't have to send their children to school. Though it is very difficult to do so, some of those people do manage to escape the hell known as poverty. I am currently in the process of doing so and look forward to my America's enforced debt slavery!

DSA...



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Here's more explanation from Stephen L Slavin. pb 83

"'The theory of the Communists may be summed up in hte single sentence: ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY," DECLARED KARL MARX and Friedrich Engels in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Who would own everything? The state. And eventually the state would wither away and we would be left with a workers' paradise."
"In the Soviet version of communism, under which the state had evidently not yet withered away, most of the capitalist roles were reversed. Instead of a guidance system of prices to direct production, a government planning committee dictated exactly what was produced, how it was produced, and for whome the goods and services were produced. After all, the state owned and operated nearly all of the means of production and distribution."
"In our economy, the market forces of supply and demand dictate what gets produced and how much of it gets produced. But a government planning agency in the Soviet Union dictated what and how much was made. "

p 84
"How well did the Soviet communist system work? Remember the chronic shortages of consumer goods we mentioned earlier in the chapter? Although Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev went to great lengths to shake up the bureaucracy and get the economy moving again, his efforts were futile. To raise output, he found he needed to somehow remove the heavy hand of bureaucracy from the economic controls."

And on p 85
"The economies of such countries as Sweden, Canada, Greaet Britain, and, recently France and Greece have been described as socialist, not only by government officials in those countries but by outside observers as well. In general, these economies have three characterisitcs: (1) GOVERNMENT OWNErSHIP of SOME of the means of production (2) a substantial degree of government planning; and (3) a large-scale redistribution of income from the wealthy and the well to do to the middle class, workikng class, and the poor."
MEDICAL care, EDUCATION, RETIREMENT benefits, and other essential needs are guaranteed to every citizen. Al you need to do is be born."

So I hope that clarifies things for you since you apparently do not know yourself and think it is everyone else who does not.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kali74
 


Here's more explanation from Stephen L Slavin. pb 83

"'The theory of the Communists may be summed up in hte single sentence: ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY," DECLARED KARL MARX and Friedrich Engels in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Who would own everything? The state. And eventually the state would wither away and we would be left with a workers' paradise."
"In the Soviet version of communism, under which the state had evidently not yet withered away, most of the capitalist roles were reversed. Instead of a guidance system of prices to direct production, a government planning committee dictated exactly what was produced, how it was produced, and for whome the goods and services were produced. After all, the state owned and operated nearly all of the means of production and distribution."
"In our economy, the market forces of supply and demand dictate what gets produced and how much of it gets produced. But a government planning agency in the Soviet Union dictated what and how much was made. "

p 84
"How well did the Soviet communist system work? Remember the chronic shortages of consumer goods we mentioned earlier in the chapter? Although Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev went to great lengths to shake up the bureaucracy and get the economy moving again, his efforts were futile. To raise output, he found he needed to somehow remove the heavy hand of bureaucracy from the economic controls."

And on p 85
"The economies of such countries as Sweden, Canada, Greaet Britain, and, recently France and Greece have been described as socialist, not only by government officials in those countries but by outside observers as well. In general, these economies have three characterisitcs: (1) GOVERNMENT OWNErSHIP of SOME of the means of production (2) a substantial degree of government planning; and (3) a large-scale redistribution of income from the wealthy and the well to do to the middle class, workikng class, and the poor."
MEDICAL care, EDUCATION, RETIREMENT benefits, and other essential needs are guaranteed to every citizen. Al you need to do is be born."

So I hope that clarifies things for you since you apparently do not know yourself and think it is everyone else who does not.


I have to say it. You need to get out more. The boogey man in the corner is getting to you.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Personally, I disagree with the socialist ideal of the abolition of private property and believe that everyone should be permitted to attempt to start their own business if they are capable of doing so and would like to. However, I do not believe that small business or an individuals "private property" have anything to do with large business such as corporations and franchises. I believe the big businesses in America have gotten way out of control and now not only own this country but are screwing the citizens more every day! I 100% disagree with ANYONE who would suggest that bailing out ANY business is a good thing to do. If the people running the company don't know what they're doing or screw up, treat them the same as you would any small business and let it fall if those people aren't willing to put up their own money to keep the business alive, just like how it is for any true small business owner.

I am no "socialist" but damn sure ain't a corporatist either. Personally, I think America needs to get over itself and try something new, something that might actually work. And no, that "something new" isn't socialism, a system that has proven time and time again to fail. That doesn't mean that maybe we shouldn't consider borrowing some aspects of that evil socialism or capitalism and combining those aspects in a our new system that we'll probably never try because you people can't stop arguing with each other as I sit here laughing my over-sized behind off as I watch this country fall.

DSA . . . Thank you for that, it really gave me a good laugh.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


American education isn't socialized?

What?

Spending billions upon billions of other peoples money and get nothing back out of it?

Sure sounds like socialized to me.


Don't worry Neo, it will all soon be over. Soon you will be in the breadlines too.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
What the next 4 years are going to look like in a nutshell is exactly what the last 4 years have looked like

4 more years of being told I hate poor people
4 more years of being told I hate women
4 more years of being told I hate African Americans
4 more years of being told I hate Hispanics
4 more years of being told I hate Gays
4 more years of being told I hate the middle class
4 more years of being told how evil corporations are
4 more years of being told how evil banks are
4 more years of the mass media ignoring everything inherently wrong with the current administration
4 more years of how the GOP is obstructionist.
4 more years of tax the rich
4 more years of the liberal superiority complex from a party that claims everyone is "equal"
4 more years of "like how totally awesome Obama and the Democrats are".
4 more years of Blame Bush which makes Bush the longest serving Potus in US history.

The United states of ignorance is what the country is
The united states of dysfunction is also what this country is.

Blah blah Blah

In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:

We are all born ignorant, but one really must work hard to remain stupid.
edit on 18-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
[/quote

Great post. I completely agree, however this has sadly been going on before Obama was elected, and unfortunately will after his last 4 years is over. It has little to do with his presidency, and much to do with marxist garbage.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIceQueen

Originally posted by neo96
What the next 4 years are going to look like in a nutshell is exactly what the last 4 years have looked like

4 more years of being told I hate poor people
4 more years of being told I hate women
4 more years of being told I hate African Americans
4 more years of being told I hate Hispanics
4 more years of being told I hate Gays
4 more years of being told I hate the middle class
4 more years of being told how evil corporations are
4 more years of being told how evil banks are
4 more years of the mass media ignoring everything inherently wrong with the current administration
4 more years of how the GOP is obstructionist.
4 more years of tax the rich
4 more years of the liberal superiority complex from a party that claims everyone is "equal"
4 more years of "like how totally awesome Obama and the Democrats are".
4 more years of Blame Bush which makes Bush the longest serving Potus in US history.

The United states of ignorance is what the country is
The united states of dysfunction is also what this country is.

Blah blah Blah

In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin:

We are all born ignorant, but one really must work hard to remain stupid.
edit on 18-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
[/quote

Great post. I completely agree, however this has sadly been going on before Obama was elected, and unfortunately will after his last 4 years is over. It has little to do with his presidency, and much to do with marxist garbage.


What marxist garbage? What are you talking about? Care to share?

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The Marxist garbage of class warfare, and race baiting I have yet to see my opposites tell me why a rich person should pay their fair share beyond the typical, " Their rich therefore their evil" crap.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


How about you start by telling me how nothing that the OP posted has to do with Marxist ideology in anyway what so ever?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The Marxist garbage of class warfare, and race baiting I have yet to see my opposites tell me why a rich person should pay their fair share beyond the typical, " Their rich therefore their evil" crap.


We are not all "equal." Some of us have a hell of a lot more than others. Who cares how they got it, if they have more than their grandchildren could ever need to live much better than the average person does than why do they need more money? Hoarding money doesn't help the economy.

I wouldn't say that we should take more money from someone who sees an average of around a million a year. In my opinion that person is wealthy but they probably do work hard to earn that kind of pay. What I would suggest is taking more from the guy who sees an average of more than $ 10 million a year. Why? That person probably isn't putting most of the money back into the economy and that is a a lot of money being taken out if it isn't being put back in.

You don't need $10 million a year to live extremely comfortably, hell you don't even need $1 million a year to do so. I don't see any self made multimillionaire being stupid enough to waste most of his/her earnings. Sure, someone who inherits their wealth, or a celebrity might be dumb enough to waste most of their money, but someone who worked for it isn't usually going to. They didn't get to where they are by being stupid!

Why would any individual need more than they need? Especially when it's being hoarded. As I said, that money is being taken out of the economy but NOT put back in.

On average, what do you think the guy who sees $50,000 a year does with the majority of his money? He spends it. But the guy who sees $50 million... what the hell is he gonna spend all of that on if he's too busy earning the damn money? Most of what that rich guy earns does not get spent, so as I keep saying, it's being taken out but not put back in.

Sure, 40 years down the road when the hoarded money is worth a lot less than it is today, the rich guy's offspring or their offspring who inherit that money will probably waste much of it on pointless crap and put it back into the system by doing so but 40 years is kind of a long time to replace something that has been removed and doesn't do anything to help our failing economy today. We probably don't have 40 years! And even if we do, the economy will essentially be getting back less than was taken out.

I'm not saying to take "all of their money." Not at all. What I am suggesting, is that it would make sense for them to be expected to do their part to try and keep this sinking ship from actually doing so. They don't need 100s of millions so how does it hurt them to make some damn jobs or something? I don't consider someone with $ 1,000,000 to be "ultra rich" and am not saying that we should "take their money." Someone with over $20,000,000 on the other hand... well they sure as hell ain't goin broke anytime soon.

Give me a GOOD reason why those who have had the opportunity to become extremely wealthy in this country shouldn't do everything within their power to keep the place afloat and hopefully allow others to have that very same opportunity. There are a lot of places on this planet where those people wouldn't have initially had the opportunity that they did and were it more for America would probably never be anywhere near as wealthy as they are today. That's what America is supposed to be about. Why is it wrong for the rich to invest in the nation hat invested in them?

Most of the rich people probably aren't "evil" but hoarding that money isn't a very good way to show America that they aren't greedy.

I answered yours but I bet you don't answer my question!





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join