Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.

Who do you support?    33 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party would you identify with, or none at all?

    • Republican
      10
    • Democrat
      9
    • Neutral, whoever I think best stands for America, regardless of party.
      14
  2. 2. Which democrat candidate would you support?

    • Hillary Clinton
      2
    • Martin O'Malley
      0
    • Bernie Sanders
      14
    • None, I'm republican or I'm party neutral and don't like these candidates.
      17
  3. 3. Which republican candidate would you support?

    • Ben Carson
      2
    • Jeb Bush
      0
    • Chris Christie
      0
    • Ted Cruz
      2
    • Carly Fiorina
      2
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • John Kasich
      0
    • Rand Paul
      6
    • Marco Rubio
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • The Donald
      3
    • None, I'm democrat or I'm party-neutral and I don't like these candidates.
      18

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

84 posts in this topic

I sorta have to agree that socialism isn't inherently bad. There definitely is a time and a place for it. Consider the elderly. Without social security, and programs like Medicaid these people would have no one and nothing in way to many cases. There needs to be a small amount of income redistribution there in order to protect people who simply cannot protect themselves.

That's why there's this thing called private charity. We should move away from government welfare programs. All the old people didnt starve and die before Socialism and FDR came along. Their community and family supported them, or they saved up enough money to live in their old age. People relying on the Federal Governemnt is almost never a good idea, under almost any circumstance. We shouldn't just abolish the system overnight, that would hurt a lot of people. But it needs to be fazed out over time. The Governemnt stealing the fruits of your labor to give to someone else is not acceptable.

 

 And a word on taxes:

The income and property taxes must be abolished. They're both appalling. In general, most taxes should be done away with. Only enough that is necessary to run a bare bones federal Governemnt, hundreds of times smaller than the current one, and to maintain the nation's infrastructure should be taken, and only at the county and/or state levels. Never more than 5-10 % of your income should have to go to taxes.

Income tax in a nutshell: Governemnt steals your hard earned money to use for its own personal benefit, or to keep the welfare dependents happy.

Property tax in a nutshell: FEUDALISM. The Governemnt treats you as a serf who does not own your own land, but merely stewards it for the Governemnt. You pay to live in your own house and on your own land that your family has owned for generations. You're no more than a slave on the Governemnt Plantation.

Death tax in a nutshell: This one the the worst. You have to pay the Governemnt to die.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think that the flat tax would be ideal as well, but I've changed my opinion on that. If we had lets say a 10% flat tax, if you tax me on my 1000 dollars that I've earned, you've taken 100 dollars and severely hurt me. If you tax dunk on his 1 million that he earns and take 100k, yeah its a lot more money, but it hasn't really done anything to him or his ability to get by. If I live in or near a major city, the $900 that I'm left with is peanuts. 

 

A more fair system would be to scale the tax as income increases. <20k$ per year pays 1% (this way no one can say we have freeloaders) and as your income increases to 1M, this scales up to 20% lets say. 

 

I do agree with anon that we need to ditch the terrible side taxes. 

 

As far as the social welfare systems, we need policies to ensure that people aren't being encouraged to take part in these systems rather than improve their own station in life on their own, but that is not what we have now or what most socialist policies endeavor to create. Safety nets are supposed to be there for the people who are out of choices, but they are severely abused. I know of too many people who make decent money while working full time who get food stamps and sell them to the people who actually need them but can't get them for one reason or another. Having a safety net is a very good and noble thing, but as anon said above, there are much better ways to handle a majority of cases without the govt (i.e. the tax payer) funding it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is at its heart a system of compassion- it endeavors to help those who have lost the ability to help themselves for the betterment of all, but it is easy to exploit, especially when the system is bogged down in levels of bureaucracy rather than an overall attempt to help others.

 

In a discussion about socialism I had the other day, I used a boat with rowers like a galley as an example. In an ideal socialist system, if a person falls overboard, they are thrown a rope and pulled back in and given a towel to dry off before getting back to rowing with everyone else. Those trying to exploit this system might instead opt to be simply pulled by the rope behind the boat instead of getting back in to row. The ideal is that each person who falls on hard times can be helped back to their feet to continue to contribute and work for a better society and economy. I don't mean to say this is communism, because it's not intended to represent a system where everyone is treated equally, only where the community supports those that are in trouble and helps them recover. A communist system might have a bunch of swimmers with harnesses pulling a boat. With better regulation, it's possible to have a functioning and healthy socialized government, but only when the policies and spending of such a government are for the benefit of the majority of the population.

 

As American politics currently stand, I don't believe there is a socialized system or socialized practices that could be employed successfully, you would need to make drastic and far reaching changes to the core of how politics are practiced before that became reasonable.

 

 

EDIT: small government is at it's heart, detrimental to the American people. Assuming a non-corrupt government, the impetus for laws and regulations is the improvement of the economy and the protection of a nation's people. Nations aren't businesses and for the most part would not unjustly impede the growth of their own corporations. Instead, laws and regulations are intended to ensure people aren't victims of scams, or fraud, aren't misled and cheated or otherwise tricked. A system that puts the majority of a nation's vital infrastructure in the hands of profit-driven entities can't be as successful as one that puts them in the hands of a well-run government- the government- which is at its heart a non-profit entity supremely interested in the well-being of it's people. I can speak from a non-American perspective when saying that our tighter hold on banks largely protected us from the 2008 collapse, and stricter regulations on businesses in general help protect people from being cheated out of their money. Companies don't have your best interests in mind, they want your money and simply want to convince you to give it to them. The governments job is to make sure they do this fairly.

 

Security and surveillance is a separate issue though.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is at its heart a system of compassion- it endeavors to help those who have lost the ability to help themselves for the betterment of all, but it is easy to exploit, especially when the system is bogged down in levels of bureaucracy rather than an overall attempt to help others.

It is not governments job to give you money. Government's job is to govern, defend the homeland, and maintain infrastructure (to a limited extent.) There are so many better ways to help people financially than by putting them on the government doll.

As American politics currently stand, I don't believe there is a socialized system or socialized practices that could be employed successfully, you would need to make drastic and far reaching changes to the core of how politics are practiced before that became reasonable.

We certainly don't need drastic and far reaching changes. We need to get rid of the drastic and far reaching changes that drug this far down. We need to return to what we once had. We had gotten by just fine until leftist policies really took hold. America only suffers under progressive policies.

EDIT: small government is at it's heart, detrimental to the American people. Assuming a non-corrupt government, the impetus for laws and regulations is the improvement of the economy and the protection of a nation's people. Nations aren't businesses and for the most part would not unjustly impede the growth of their own corporations. Instead, laws and regulations are intended to ensure people aren't victims of scams, or fraud, aren't misled and cheated or otherwise tricked. A system that puts the majority of a nation's vital infrastructure in the hands of profit-driven entities can't be as successful as one that puts them in the hands of a well-run government- the government- which is at its heart a non-profit entity supremely interested in the well-being of it's people. I can speak from a non-American perspective when saying that our tighter hold on banks largely protected us from the 2008 collapse, and stricter regulations on businesses in general help protect people from being cheated out of their money. Companies don't have your best interests in mind, they want your money and simply want to convince you to give it to them. The governments job is to make sure they do this fairly.

With big Governemnt comes restrictions on or rights and freedom, without fail. America thrived under small Governemnt for more than a century, and has deteriorated as Governemnt has gotten bigger over time. There is no such thing as a completely non corrupt Governemnt, and there is absolutely no such thing as a non-profit Governemnt. That's one of the reasons Governemnt must remain (or return to being) small. I would give control of infrastructure to almost anyone before I would give it to big Governemnt. Governemnt-dominated anything is always worse without fail. It's better that it's run by dozens of companies than by one humongous one. (That's what big Governments, especially socialist ones, are; companies who run off of bullying, threatening, and stealing from their citizens.) Healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, and even military would be best run by the states, companies, and citizens. Not by an oppressive government (in this context, big is a synonym for oppressive.) Infrastructure may be an exception, it's reasonable for government to run roads in some instances. But this should be state, not federal, Governemnt. While companies may or may not have your best interests in mind, big Governemnt certainly never does. There is no such thing as a benevolent big Government. They are only benevolent to the bureaucrats and the wealthy CEOs that support them. Big Governemnt only exists to rob you. Why do you think we overthrew Britain's rule here?If there's anything that is not governemnt's job, it's restricting and regulating private businesses. That's the worst thing imaginable for the economy and the average 99% of Americans. While companies attempt to convince you to give them your money, big Governments snatch it away from you. And if you don't give it to them, you usually go to jail and your life is ruined. Big government is not the solution to America's problems, big government IS America's problems. The areas with the highest crime-rates, taxes, and poverty-rates are all controlled by leftists. Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Baltimore, New Orleans, Scranton, just to name a few. Finally, almost all countries that have ever ceded to much power to a federal government have failed. Rome, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, etc. America will be added to that list if we don't change our ways and stop sprinting down the highway towards socialist destruction. Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man, I don't want to get into an argument here, I just want to share the perspective of someone who sees America from the outside. I think that talking about the quality of life in America in the past is great, but I'm not sure that traditional values and systems can always work the same way in a changing and growing global economy. America used to house large factories and production and produced many of the world's best technologies and innovations, yet now those same companies that fueled the country's growth outsource work to countries with cheaper labor. The internet makes it possible for every person to be heard when 50 years ago, they wouldn't have been able to. I think the current state of technology makes clear the issues the country has had for a very long time. I think many of America's largest issues come from poor regulation of corporations and the exploitation of your country's environment and people. You're right, you would be sacrificing certain rights with a larger government but are you so sure that every right is equally important? Freedom of speech is great- the government should have no say in what you think or vocalize, but if your government (like mine) said it was illegal to single out a minority or group and defame them or treat them with less kindness and respect than you treat others without due cause, would you be up in arms? Take a look at our charter of rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Features here our rights are limited because we're not allowed to impede anyone else's rights. If you judge someone on their race or religion rather than their own character, you can be penalized here. I don't think that's so bad. What's so important about having the right to be a jackass? Especially because if I have the right to be a jackass, everyone has the right to be a jackass to me, and I think I could deal with being less of a jackass if it meant everyone else would be too.

 

Back to a topic I mentioned earlier, the largest companies in America exploit the American people. Pharmaceuticals, Money lenders, banks, tobacco, and many others pay lobbyists and your government to overturn laws that would hurt their business by protecting people from them. Your judges are elected in a popularity contest rather than by the merits of their actions. The entire system in the united states is dog-eat-dog if you're one of the unlucky few at the bottom, and your system requires those people to exist- to work at minimum-wage jobs like fast food restaurants or as janitors or as waitresses or anything else- your system deliberately puts a percentage of your people in a position where they can't afford health care or medical bills, or to get out of debt- there are so many things wrong with your country, and as you said, it was once so good (or seemed that way, again the problems are more visible now) either way, America used to be at the forefront of every industry and field- it used to be the country with a plaque that read

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

and I think the whole world agreed that was a great country. I don't think it's liberalism that has made your country worse, I think it's a failure to adapt to the changes and problems that were growing within yourself.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many of America's largest issues come from poor regulation of corporations and the exploitation of your country's environment and people.

Exactly! Governemnt has put too many regulations upon us. It's almost impossible to run a business without breaking the law. I'm sure it's even worse in Canada. Yes! The big (key word big) Gov't exploits almost everyone, especially the very people they claim to protect. The environment exists to be used and enjoyed. It is there to be used. By everyone. The people of America don't exploit our environment, the government who owns so much of it does. They keep us off it, control it strictly, and restricts our use & enjoyment of it. They have a monopoly on the land.

You're right, you would be sacrificing certain rights with a larger government but are you so sure that every right is equally important? Freedom of speech is great- the government should have no say in what you think or vocalize, but if your government (like mine) said it was illegal to single out a minority or group and defame them or treat them with less kindness and respect than you treat others without due cause, would you be up in arms?

No rights are worth sacrificing. None. Zero. The fact you think it's ok for us to surrender our rights- well I'll go no further there. All rights are very important. Not a single one should be up for sale under any circumstance what so ever. We should always be able to say what EVER we want. Yes, you're allowed to be racist. You are allowed to publicaaly hate any group. It's wrong to in any way suppress public speech, whethers it's friendly or hateful is irrelevant. That doesn't mean you have the right to act on your hate in dangerous ways- but you have every right to say it PUBLICLY, to publish it, etc. No exceptions.

Yes, I'm aware the Canadian government is becoming oppressive, even faster than ours is. I know Canadians, and it's almost unbelievable how much your Gov't has stripped away freedoms.

If you judge someone on their race or religion rather than their own character, you can be penalized here. I don't think that's so bad. What's so important about having the right to be a jackass? Especially because if I have the right to be a jackass, everyone has the right to be a jackass to me, and I think I could deal with being less of a jackass if it meant everyone else would be too.

It's intolerable that a Governemnt can dictate what it's citizen say, and penalize them for not following the "Gov't regulations on speech." That's the top, nevermind, close to the bottom, of the slippery slope down to death camps and dictators. The Feds dictating what you can say and how you can act is Appaling. At that point, you functionally have no more true freedom. America was founded on free speech, along with other very important rights. That doesn't mean some or certain free speech, it means you can say whatever you want, and be free to do it without an oppressive Gov't attacking you. That's the reason we even exist. We fought a war to preserve those rights.

And who's to say evil people in the Governemnt wont force their frame of mind on to the system (this is highly likely.) Using that frame of mind, they could deem certain religions "hateful" and ban them. They could deem certain reading materials "hateful" and censor them. They could deem certain races "hateful" and exterminate them. This is the kinda stuff that went on in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Back to a topic I mentioned earlier, the largest companies in America exploit the American people. Pharmaceuticals, Money lenders, banks, tobacco, and many others pay lobbyists and your government to overturn laws that would hurt their business by protecting people from them. Your judges are elected in a popularity contest rather than by the merits of their actions. The entire system in the united states is dog-eat-dog if you're one of the unlucky few at the bottom, and your system requires those people to exist- to work at minimum-wage jobs like fast food restaurants or as janitors or as waitresses or anything else- your system deliberately puts a percentage of your people in a position where they can't afford health care or medical bills, or to get out of debt- there are so many things wrong with your country.

Most of these companies are dominated by leftists. It's the leftists exploiting the Americans. Secondly, being the customer of a company is a choice. Smoking is a choice. Using a bank is a choice. With big oppressive governemnt's, you have no choices. You obey or your life is ruined or ended.

Our system requires no one to stay at the bottom. You can succeed, but a lot of people choose not to. If you want to be successful, don't go into a career at McDoanlds. My family, just two generations ago, was dirt poor. My dad grew up in a farmhouse with no electricity or running water. But America has allowed us to succeed, a real rarity in the rest of the world.

Yes you are correct. There are many things wrong with America. They are all rooted in leftism- crony capitalism and socialism.

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If you think America hates immigrants- that's just wrong. We have far more immigrants than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. We welcome immigrants with open arms. We are the most welcoming nation on the planet. But they must come legally, and they can't just be given welfare dependency and reliance on the rest of us.

America is still the greatest nation in the world by far, and may it remain that way. We're unique. We don't need to bend to the whims and trends of the rest of the world, because they are always negative. We cut our own path. We're trailblazers. We stood out. We were the first to stand up to tyranny, and may we never fall back into it. Because this is freedom's last stand, a beacon of hope. We are a welcoming nation, in a world of hate. If we lose here in America, it's over.

God Bless America.

Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

America is still the greatest nation in the world by far, and may it remain that way.

 

Name a single metric by which America is ranked #1 compared to the world at large (Excluding per capita imprisonment, boy we do love throwing people in prison. Oh and the size of our military... )

 

 

-definitely agree with you on a lot of things anon, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. 'Greatest nation in the world' my left nut :P. Maybe 75 years ago... but today is an entirely different America than the one that once lead the world by example.

Edited by MDub
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name a single metric by which America is ranked #1 compared to the world at large (Excluding per capita imprisonment, boy we do love throwing people in prison. Oh and the size of our military... )  -definitely agree with you on a lot of things anon, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. 'Greatest nation in the world' my left nut :P. Maybe 75 years ago... but today is an entirely different America than the one that once lead the world by example.

Our greatness is not measured by income, academics, or anything else. We are great because of our system of government and our rights. No one in the world has or has ever had freedom like we do. No one. We are a shining beacon in a world of corruption, greed, oppression, socialism, etc. America is a great nation. We can retake what we have lost. We score low in academics because of Governemnt re-education camps called "public schools." Thanks socialism. We score low in income level because of our horrendous Governemnt welfare system allows people to choose to rely on the "Givernment." It has nothing to do with minimum wage. Thanks socialism. We score low in healthcare because it is dominated by the Governemnt. Thanks socialism. I'd rather be poor and free than be rich and enslaved. I'd rather have less and be free than have more and be enslaved. (That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice those things to be free.) I'm never gonna surrender my rights for more "security," more "happiness," or anything of the likes. Freedom takes precedent over any of those. I won't be a piglet suckling the federal sow. I'd rather live in a place like America than in a place like the People's Republic of Sweden. I'm sure the majority of Americans would agree. I would never live anywhere else.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god... Sweden... If it was a choice between moving to Sweden, or dying a slow death by exsanguination through a million tiny cuts, while being buried up to my neck in salt.... I would almost certainly choose to bleed to death.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me back up a second, you're positive that rights and freedoms are so important that they should never be sacrificed under any circumstances? I interpret this to mean that all rights have equal value (the highest value) and that no right can take priority over another, and that there is nothing anyone could offer you that could ever be better than one of those rights- rights that you would never exercise trump something like financial security (not saying this is something in real life, just for example). Having the right to poop on top of mount Everest for example (you have to pay your own way there and hire guides/gear/etc) is more important than something like protection from debt fraud. Because to me, you've said that all rights and freedoms trump securities.

 

Also, I accept that you feel this way (not saying you're wrong) but I want you to explain to me (without saying something like "because" or "rights are good" or anything like that) why rights are the most important thing for a person to have. Why is absolute liberty the only way that a person can truly be happy and why should every person in America feel the same way you do? What about all these rights fulfills you? What about it puts food on your table and lets you sleep at night knowing your future is safe and your children will live happily? I just want a better idea of where you're coming from.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me back up a second, you're positive that rights and freedoms are so important that they should never be sacrificed under any circumstances? I interpret this to mean that all rights have equal value (the highest value) and that no right can take priority over another, and that there is nothing anyone could offer you that could ever be better than one of those rights- rights that you would never exercise trump something like financial security (not saying this is something in real life, just for example). Having the right to poop on top of mount Everest for example (you have to pay your own way there and hire guides/gear/etc) is more important than something like protection from debt fraud. Because to me, you've said that all rights and freedoms trump securities.

Big government is not interested in your security in any way- unless it somehow benefits them or gives them more power. Government doesn't keep you safe. And yes, rights trump securities. If it means your rights will be taken away so "Almighty Government" can gift you with a false security, then yes those rights and freedoms certainly trump those securities. Yes all rights have extreme power and no government or person has the right to take away your rights. They may not infringe in any way upon your right to bear arms, your right to life, your right to free speech, your right to practice any religion, your right to a fair trial, your right to property, etc etc. But big governemnts infringe or take away all of these.As for the right to bear arms, well, the populace needs to be armed to the point where the Governemnt is afraid of defying us. If that means owning RPG's, machine guns, and tanks, well so be it. We can not have a Governemnt that is more powerful than its citizens.Right to life means that no innocent person can be killed under any circumstance. No abortion, that is murder. The death penalty for EXTREMELY violent murders or terrorists should be the only exception. Right to free speech is a no-brainier. It's just blatantly evil for the Gov't to tell you what and what you can't say. If you say "I hate the Governemnt" or "I hate all members of _ religion" or "I wish so and so politician was dead" well that's your right.Right to religion- also a no-brainier that may not be infringed under any circumstance. Cults where killing/raping is involved is another story of course. Government should never so much as breathe on your property, much less tax you half to death over it. Or regulate how you use it.  

Also, I accept that you feel this way (not saying you're wrong) but I want you to explain to me (without saying something like "because" or "rights are good" or anything like that) why rights are the most important thing for a person to have. Why is absolute liberty the only way that a person can truly be happy and why should every person in America feel the same way you do? What about all these rights fulfills you? What about it puts food on your table and lets you sleep at night knowing your future is safe and your children will live happily? I just want a better idea of where you're coming from.

So. Big Governemnt does none of those things you mentioned. Big Governemnt makes you less secure and makes you less happy. Big Governemnt grows like a cancer and is always trying to find ways to undermine you and your freedom. Big government is your enemy. How many tens of millions of innocent citizens have been slaughtered and starved by big governments?----------------------------------Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying food isn't safe because you could potentially become obese and die earlier. Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying breathing isn't safe because you could breathe in a toxic chemical.Saying that true freedom isn't safe is like saying your home isn't safe because it could catch on fire.Saying true freedom isn't safe is like saying pencils aren't safe because you could use them to misspell words and fail your grammar test.Let me use this analogy to describe "turning in freedom for safety"-A dog can live its whole life in a cage, and be "safe" the whole time. Does that mean that he should? Another one:- Slaves in the pre-Civil War south were very safe. Safer than the average person. They were so safe, they couldn't leave the plantation. They didn't have to worry about being robbed, they didn't own anything anyway. They were guarded by a an overseer and a whip. Does that mean they were happy, just because they had security? Safety can be synonymous with slavery. Especially if it means sacrificing freedom to have it. Socialism is like slavery. You don't have to worry about being robbed so much, because you have nothing to be robbed of. You don't own anything in the first place. You're safe as can be, guarded by an overseer (Gov't) and a whip (militarized police force, cyber spying, drones, etc.) While these things "protect" you, they strip your freedom down to nothing. Here's another one:-Trading in freedom for security is like a mouse stepping onto a trap to get the cheese. Will he get his reward? Yes he will, but only to enjoy for the split second before his neck is snapped.DONT TAKE THE CHEESE!!!Unwavering freedom isn't worth sacrificing for if-and-maybes such as "security." You will always be free if you have freedom. You wont always be safe by giving it up. No matter what, you will never be truly safe. Anyone can lose everything at any moment. But if you live in a nation with a small Governemnt that is truly controlled by the people and for the people, you will always be free so long as you live. There is nothing in this world worth more than salvation and freedom. Also, using your logic, safety comes before freedom, right? Well you just agreed with rounding up Japanese-Americans into camps during WW2. America would've been safer without them, because a few truly were spies. But did that justify rounding all of 'em up? Of course not. You also just agreed with prohibition. We truly are safer without alcohol, but does that mean it should be banned? Of course not!!!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personaly think Sweden would be a great place to live, am a hard core American Socialist, and yes, I did choose this username specificaly for this conversation.

 

First of all, I would dispute many of the assertions made by your postings. Most of the heads of big buisnesses are NOT leftists, rather the oposit, rightists, and I think it is fairly clear based on the salaries of the high-ranking coperate officials and simultaneous low wages and outsourcing that the buisnesses do NOT have the people's best interests at heart. They need to be regulated, and the best method for doing so is the federal govenment. The first atempts by workers for better wages and conditions were met with hostility and conflict when the first unions formed.

 

Also, the reasons for the USA's lower rankings in academics has much less to do with Public Schooling, but rather measures such as "No Child Left Behind" (Passed by Bush), that make it neccesary to get everyone to a minimum level of competence, a level that there is no reward for surpasing, only problems if it isn't reached. The cheap, government run public schooling through highschool is the reason that the USA did so well in many areas decades ago. The problem is that now such competitiveness requires higher education, which is NOT government provided in the USA (although Obama is trying to change that). The system in Germany (which is fairly socialistic and on the rise) is better, with spliting the students into college bound and industry bound for ideal training after good, strong, basic education.

 

Also, you mentioned several "Socialist" countries that had collapsed. None of them had been a truly socialistic nation. The only truly socialistic nation in history has been the Incan Empire. It was a great place, without any form of currency, yet it was still expanding and strong until Spanish came in and took captive and murdered their leader who had greeted them without conflict. The main destructive agent was smallpox, also brought by the spanish. The Incan Empire was a great place were ABSOLUTLY EVERYBODY had food, water, and housing, where there was at any time about a 2 year stockpile of extra food in case of famine, and where their form of taxation was everyone labored for the government for so long each year, serving in many ways, including but not limited to government farms, building and maintaining rope bridges, working on public works such as building houses and cities, terracing land, working on the road network, serving in the military, mining, and weaving textiles for the government. Yes, social mobility was fairly limited, but the highly socialistic government made sure everyone in the empire was fed, clothed, and housed, as well as maintaining a large empire with a crime rate that was absurdly low, even by modern standards.

 

Socialism has gotten a bad reputation for many because of the actions of a few dictatorships which were never truly socialist. A democratic socialistic society would actualy work very well, as long as the idea of currency was abandoned.

 

Oh and

 

Big government is not the solution to America's problems, big government IS America's problems. The areas with the highest crime-rates, taxes, and poverty-rates are all controlled by leftists. Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, Baltimore, New Orleans, Scranton, just to name a few.

They are controled by leftists because the people there believe the leftists will help them more than the rightists, not because leftist control degraded the areas.

 

I now state my opinion that there are some liberties that can be sacrificed. I believe in stringent gun control, and reading the original amendment, it actualy only gives the states the right to have groups of semi-organized armed men for protecion, in those days from the british, as we were weak and under constant thret. Now we have the strongest military in the world by far and a full-time police force to protect us/enforce the law. It is pointless in modern times. Excessive freedoms must be curbed to some degree so as to not infringe upon the freedoms of everyone elce.

 

Finaly, the actions that would have the largest impact on improving the government would be to first end ALL monetary lobbying in ALL forms, second, employ a campaign media method similar to the French, where if in any media source one canidate gets so much coverage, all other canidates in the same race get the same amount of coverage, and 3rd greatly reduce the salaries of elected officals to the point that they are enough to live on but not so much as to atract people to politics for the money. These 3 steps would make the government much more honest, and a much better representation of the will of the people, not that of large corporations.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're telling me you would want to live in a country that is essentially a tumblr nation? One where your elected officials claim that the native population don't have a culture, and claim that only immigrants have anything of value to add? One with a crippling housing and job shortage in light of one of the highest rates of immigration in the world (nearly a quarter of the population is first generation immigrants)? A country that festers with anti-nationalism and super political correctness? Where everyone is a racist except the immigrants? Where if you're a muslim and you rape a girl you can get off with community service because you 'didn't know any better' (more PC double think)? Or perhaps you enjoy the government actually entertaining the idea of mandating that men sit down to urinate? No thanks, I'll skip the self flagellation.... You have some screwed up perspectives. Sweden is a social experiment gone awry, and I pity the fool who thinks it would be a decent place to live.Don't get me wrong... I'm all for compassion, but the fact remains, we live in a world driven by scarcity, and we MUST compete to survive, and in light of that fact we have to have a balance between self interest and humanitarian outreach.

Edited by MDub
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I would dispute many of the assertions made by your postings. Most of the heads of big buisnesses are NOT leftists, rather the oposit, rightists, and I think it is fairly clear based on the salaries of the high-ranking coperate officials and simultaneous low wages and outsourcing that the buisnesses do NOT have the people's best interests at heart. They need to be regulated, and the best method for doing so is the federal govenment. The first atempts by workers for better wages and conditions were met with hostility and conflict when the first unions formed.

Do not expect the workers to earn the same as the CEO's and leaders of the company. I never disputed the fact that some businesses don't have your best interests in mind, they aren't required to. But the big Gov't is required to have your best interests in mind, and they don't. They were met with hostility because the unions started the hostility. I believe that you have the right to join a union, but that doesn't mean the company leader has to appeal to the union's demands. It's their business, they can run it as they like. If the worker hates the company enough, they're free to leave.

Also, the reasons for the USA's lower rankings in academics has much less to do with Public Schooling, but rather measures such as "No Child Left Behind" (Passed by Bush), that make it neccesary to get everyone to a minimum level of competence, a level that there is no reward for surpasing, only problems if it isn't reached. The cheap, government run public schooling through highschool is the reason that the USA did so well in many areas decades ago. The problem is that now such competitiveness requires higher education, which is NOT government provided in the USA (although Obama is trying to change that). The system in Germany (which is fairly socialistic and on the rise) is better, with spliting the students into college bound and industry bound for ideal training after good, strong, basic education.

First off, I don't like Bush, and I never said I did. No education should be provided by the Gov't, because then they can indoctrinate everyone in to doing what ever they want them to. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the governemnt's. The government choosing your education is just unacceptable. And I don't even know if you realize this, but your beloved Obama is not even a socialist. But I don't want to discuss him any more, I don't want my day to be ruined.

Also, you mentioned several "Socialist" countries that had collapsed. None of them had been a truly socialistic nation. The only truly socialistic nation in history has been the Incan Empire. It was a great place, without any form of currency, yet it was still expanding and strong until Spanish came in and took captive and murdered their leader who had greeted them without conflict. The main destructive agent was smallpox, also brought by the spanish. The Incan Empire was a great place were ABSOLUTLY EVERYBODY had food, water, and housing, where there was at any time about a 2 year stockpile of extra food in case of famine, and where their form of taxation was everyone labored for the government for so long each year, serving in many ways, including but not limited to government farms, building and maintaining rope bridges, working on public works such as building houses and cities, terracing land, working on the road network, serving in the military, mining, and weaving textiles for the government. Yes, social mobility was fairly limited, but the highly socialistic government made sure everyone in the empire was fed, clothed, and housed, as well as maintaining a large empire with a crime rate that was absurdly low, even by modern standards.

The Incan Empire was based on conquest and subjugation. They conquered neighboring tribes and civilizations, merging them into their own. The Incan government was barbaric. They thrived on conquest, war, and killing. One of the Incan leaders had his rival killed, and used his skull to make a kettle to drink his beer from. Do not use the Incans as a model for your perfect society. They were just as bad or even worse than their Spanish conquerors. They are comparable to Nazi Germany in many ways. And don't forget their human sacrifice, and no, I'm not confusing them with the Aztecs. I've read a book on the Incans.

Socialism has gotten a bad reputation for many because of the actions of a few dictatorships which were never truly socialist. A democratic socialistic society would actualy work very well, as long as the idea of currency was abandoned.

Socialism has only killed over a hundred million people, but ghee, let's give it another chance!

They are controled by leftists because the people there believe the leftists will help them more than the rightists, not because leftist control degraded the areas.

You're forgetting the fact that they've been controlled by leftists for generations. No change yet. Except in the wrong direction. They've only gotten worse.

I now state my opinion that there are some liberties that can be sacrificed. I believe in stringent gun control, and reading the original amendment, it actualy only gives the states the right to have groups of semi-organized armed men for protecion, in those days from the british, as we were weak and under constant thret. Now we have the strongest military in the world by far and a full-time police force to protect us/enforce the law. It is pointless in modern times. Excessive freedoms must be curbed to some degree so as to not infringe upon the freedoms of everyone else.

Gun control only kills people. The cities with the highest amount of gun control also have the highest homicide rates. Gun control arms bad guys and disarms good guys. And do you truly believe criminals will obey gun control? When's the last time you saw meth for sale at the grocery store? Also, a disarmed populace allows bad people in the Governemnt to do what ever they want with no fear of being taken out of power. ----------------With all due respect, I don't think you understand the 2nd Ammendment. Here it is:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."As you can see, it says in clear black-and-white print that the right of the people (not militias, people) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. It also happens to include militias. Owning guns in no way infringes upon the rights of others. The fact that we have an extremely powerful and dangerous military only reinforces the idea that all citizens should be armed to protect themselves.

Finaly, the actions that would have the largest impact on improving the government would be to first end ALL monetary lobbying in ALL forms, second, employ a campaign media method similar to the French, where if in any media source one canidate gets so much coverage, all other canidates in the same race get the same amount of coverage, and 3rd greatly reduce the salaries of elected officals to the point that they are enough to live on but not so much as to atract people to politics for the money. These 3 steps would make the government much more honest, and a much better representation of the will of the people, not that of large corporations.

So you think the Governemnt dictating how much and what the media can report is OK? What are you gonna say when the Gov't decides that what you're saying isn't OK? It'll backfire on ya then, won't it? The Gov't must have no say what so ever in what the media and the people can say. That's why we have the right to free speech. If you don't like it, then America just might not be the place for you.The Governemnt must be controlled by the people and it must be for the people. Governemnt is not here to control us. Edited by anonymous conservative
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anony +1 for standing up for free speech and freedom of the press. People don't have the right to not be offended, and they seem to forget that. Freedom of speech should be treated as immutable due to it being absolutely vital to a free society. Censorship does in fact equal oppression.

 

-after thought- I would like to add that any STATE run media outlets should be required to give equal representation to parties on anything related to politics, but private entities should never have their freedom of speech infringed because of someone else's 'feelings'.

Edited by MDub
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anony +1 for standing up for free speech and freedom of the press. People don't have the right to not be offended, and they seem to forget that. Freedom of speech should be treated as immutable due to it being absolutely vital to a free society. Censorship does in fact equal oppression.-after thought- I would like to add that any STATE run media outlets should be required to give equal representation to parties on anything related to politics, but private entities should never have their freedom of speech infringed because of someone else's 'feelings'.

NPR is the most biased media outlet ever. And they're state sponsored. I can't stand listening to that trash. Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just plain wrong. NPR is by far not the most biased media outlet. And they are by no means state owned. NPR is privatly owned and gets most of it's funding from private donations, not state governments.

 

In VA, all state funding for NPR has ended, and the stations are still runing on private donations. They are one of the LEAST biased media outlets avalable, and do an excelent job of having interviews with people from both sides.

 

As for the Incan Empire being built on conquest and bloodshed, how is America any different? We invaded and took places such as California by force, and much more recently used US supported military takeovers in peaceful South American democratic socialist societies to make them into violent, horrid "Capitalistic" dictatorships with masive amounts of killings, no free press and more. The after effects are still being felt. The Incans did take over by force, and then made a concerted effort to assimilate the new teritories into their lands. They weren't perfect, but no nation ever has been, especialy not the USA.

 

Oh, and I'm perfectly well aware that Obama isnt a socialist and disagree with some of what he does, but the example I used was socialismic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just plain wrong. NPR is by far not the most biased media outlet. And they are by no means state owned. NPR is privatly owned and gets most of it's funding from private donations, not state governments.In VA, all state funding for NPR has ended, and the stations are still runing on private donations. They are one of the LEAST biased media outlets avalable, and do an excelent job of having interviews with people from both sides.

You're right. MSNBC is worse. But who cares about them, they have fewer viewers than the Flat Earth Society has members. In the countless hours I have listened to NPR, I've never heard a single non-liberal reporter, and almost all of their reporters/anchors/hosts whatever are white. I've also only ever heard them interview one or two republican/conservatives. It doesn't represent the public, it represents a handful of liberal elites. It should be renamed "National Propoganda Radio" or something to that effect. Hey, they could even even keep their acronym!

As for the Incan Empire being built on conquest and bloodshed, how is America any different? We invaded and took places such as California by force, and much more recently used US supported military takeovers in peaceful South American democratic socialist societies to make them into violent, horrid "Capitalistic" dictatorships with masive amounts of killings, no free press and more. The after effects are still being felt. The Incans did take over by force, and then made a concerted effort to assimilate the new teritories into their lands. They weren't perfect, but no nation ever has been, especialy not the USA.

No one who lives anywhere is a member of the original group that occupied that region. There was always someone else their before them. Before we acquired California, it was the Bear Flag Republic, and before them, Mexico had it, and before them, Spain had it, and before them it was controlled by hundreds of various people groups who were almost constantly clashing and warring with each other for control. Any given area has probably been controlled by dozens of different groups. Even before them, It was controlled by the mastodons, ground sloths, and saber-toothed cats. Maybe we should give it back to them. Hey, Britain had us before we did. Perhaps, we should re-join them.To suggest that America was built on imperialism, conquest, and bloodshed is ridiculous. Everyone we've had to fight, we've voluntarily given most or all of their land back, and have even helped them rebuild. We are the most peaceful, polite, and merciful nation currently in existence. I'm not saying America is perfect, no country is. But we're by far the best nation in existence. We've done bad things, and I acknowledge that. But we correct ourselves, ask forgiveness, find common ground, and move on. That makes us quite unique. Edited by anonymous conservative
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised and encouraged by the majority of the posts on this topic.  I liked TFCraft before but now I've another reason to like it.  TFCraft, the conservative minecraft.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control was brought up. I think gun control in America is complicated because there is a large portion of the population that believe it is their born right to carry or own a gun and because so many of these weapons are already in the country. Guns are dangerous. They're like the nuclear weapon of person-to-person combat; they're definitive and deadly. In some places in America today, people legitimately need weapons to protect themselves, their family and their property from violence. These are honest, hard working, tax paying citizens and strict and blanketing gun laws would put these people in danger. And that's the problem. It's almost like an addiction, and stopping cold turkey is going to send the country into withdrawal (where honest citizens can't get guns and criminals can). There is no way that America could phase out guns in less than a couple decades, in my opinion, and the first step is NOT to ban guns, but to make it harder for criminals to get guns without affecting the good citizens of the country. Purchasing, owning and carrying guns should be more difficult or require a longer process designed to vet people deemed unfit to carry a weapon. Licenses should be required at all times, as is required for driving a car. The honest man that takes the proper safety courses, applies for a license and successfully receives one can be given a gun.

 

Another change that could facilitate gun control (remember, we're not trying to prevent Americans from owning guns, only the criminals in America) is to have gun production designed around a made-to-order situation. A person that has received a gun license can order weapons or ammunition of their choice for delivery. A database will record the serial number of the weapons produced and how much ammo is being purchased. Any weapons found or linked to crimes can be traced to the purchaser, who is deemed the owner of the weapon: selling guns will become a licensed operation to ensure that a gun's serial number is always linked to the current owner. Because gun purchases must be for personal use, we can limit the number of guns that may be purchased in a given time period (no one needs 20 handguns in a 3 month period).

 

I do not believe there is any issue with having records of the guns and ammunition that each citizen purchases- without criminal intent, this information cannot be used to indict anyone- it's just numbers. Later, it could be required that citizens report any times they've discharged their weapons. It could be as simple as "I went hunting with my 12-gauge, serial number XXXXXXX and fired 12 times." Simple, but it lets the government account for how ammo is being used. If someone was circumstantially linked to a crime, all they'd have to do is show that the only ammo they were missing was the ammo they'd reported themselves and they would be off the hook.

 

Really, the system needs to be designed so that good people don't get screwed. If this system screws you, maybe you should rethink what you're doing with your guns. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think gun control in America is complicated because there is a large portion of the population that believe it is their born right to carry or own a gun...

This *is* the born right of every American citizen - it's in the Constitution.   The belief is a fact in this case.

 

I'm always curious in 2nd amendment discussion, the people who comment (especially on the control side), have they ever fired a gun?  Do they own a gun?  Have they ever killed an animal with a gun? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control was brought up. I think gun control in America is complicated because there is a large portion of the population that believe it is their born right to carry or own a gun and because so many of these weapons are already in the country. Guns are dangerous. They're like the nuclear weapon of person-to-person combat; they're definitive and deadly. In some places in America today, people legitimately need weapons to protect themselves, their family and their property from violence. These are honest, hard working, tax paying citizens and strict and blanketing gun laws would put these people in danger. And that's the problem. It's almost like an addiction, and stopping cold turkey is going to send the country into withdrawal (where honest citizens can't get guns and criminals can). There is no way that America could phase out guns in less than a couple decades, in my opinion, and the first step is NOT to ban guns, but to make it harder for criminals to get guns without affecting the good citizens of the country. Purchasing, owning and carrying guns should be more difficult or require a longer process designed to vet people deemed unfit to carry a weapon. Licenses should be required at all times, as is required for driving a car. The honest man that takes the proper safety courses, applies for a license and successfully receives one can be given a gun.Another change that could facilitate gun control (remember, we're not trying to prevent Americans from owning guns, only the criminals in America) is to have gun production designed around a made-to-order situation. A person that has received a gun license can order weapons or ammunition of their choice for delivery. A database will record the serial number of the weapons produced and how much ammo is being purchased. Any weapons found or linked to crimes can be traced to the purchaser, who is deemed the owner of the weapon: selling guns will become a licensed operation to ensure that a gun's serial number is always linked to the current owner. Because gun purchases must be for personal use, we can limit the number of guns that may be purchased in a given time period (no one needs 20 handguns in a 3 month period).I do not believe there is any issue with having records of the guns and ammunition that each citizen purchases- without criminal intent, this information cannot be used to indict anyone- it's just numbers. Later, it could be required that citizens report any times they've discharged their weapons. It could be as simple as "I went hunting with my 12-gauge, serial number XXXXXXX and fired 12 times." Simple, but it lets the government account for how ammo is being used. If someone was circumstantially linked to a crime, all they'd have to do is show that the only ammo they were missing was the ammo they'd reported themselves and they would be off the hook.Really, the system needs to be designed so that good people don't get screwed. If this system screws you, maybe you should rethink what you're doing with your guns.

Yes but it IS our born right to carry guns and NO ONE can take that away. It is listed right along side free speech, that's how important our framers saw it to be. Any leader that proposes taking away guns should be removed from office ASAP. ANYONE. Dictatorships always start by restricting gun use of the citizens. Hitler did it, Castro did it, Stallin did it, Mao did it, Hugo Chavez did it, the list goes on and on. It should be illegal for Governemnt officials to suggest disarming Americans. Out of the question. If you really think stricter gun-control laws will bring down the murder rates, well I just don't know what to say about that. Do you realize how much gun crime there is in places like Mexico where guns are pretty much outright banned? The worst possible thing you could do to bring down the murder rate is to "control" guns. It's places like Chicago, New York, and DC in America that have the highest gun murder rates. When the criminals know that no one can defend themselves, then everyone is a target. When no one's armed, it's so easy for murders to kill lots of people, because no one can fight back. It'd be easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Kenesaw, Georgia, for example, has a law that requires every head of a household to own at least one firearm. The murder rate has dropped something like 83% since that law was enacted. Gun control disarms the good people and arms the bad people.Criminals never obey gun laws. Do they sell meth, cocaine, etc. at the grocery store? NO! Do people still get those? OBVIOSLY! Just because it is made illegal doesn't mean it will go away. Then, only the people who will misuse it will have it. If the Governemnt knows everyone who owns a gun, and how many they have, well isn't it gonna be so easy for them to just confiscate everyone's guns when the time comes so they can establish their authoritarian regime? This has already effectively been done in places like the UK and Australia. There is no comparison to be made between guns and nuclear weapons. One can potentially kill a few while the other can kill millions. Finally, guns aren't here so we can go hunting with them. At the time the Constitution was written, for most Americans, if you didnt hunt, you starved. Guns were a fact of life, like cars and phones are today. It was obvious that everyone and anyone could own guns. Guns are here (we have the right to have them) in case we ever, God forbid, have to fight our own Governemnt because it has become to authoritarian. Or, in case The Homeland is ever invaded by a foreign army. You'd be a whole lot harder to invade if upwards of 90% of your population was armed, now wouldn't ya? Like I said earlier, the citizens of the United States need to be at least as equally armed as their government. (WMD's such as nukes, gases, and ICBMs would of course be exceptions.)They (the Governemnt) needs to be scared to death of defying the will of the people. We are not there to serve their needs, they are there to serve ours.

post-18216-0-09023700-1440797797_thumb.j

Edited by anonymous conservative
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms was written into the Constitution, not for the purposes of hunting or defending one's home, family, and life against individual criminals, but as a check against tyranny.  That was the intention.  The founding fathers believed that a people cannot remain free if they pose no real threat to their own government.  The pro gun control folks who want to have any kind of reasonable discussion need to address this position, not the straw man positions of hunting and individual protection from low level thugs.  You will never win an argument against someone if you do not address his actual position.

 

I'm not saying you'll win the argument and persuade the folks who are against gun control anyway... but... ya know... bad form and all that.

 

I personally agree with the founding fathers.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, you actually think having guns would help us fight the government in a worst case scenario? You're crazy. The government's weapons so far outstrip guns it would be like taking a toothpick into a medieval battle. If the government wanted you dead, you'd already be dead.

Also your statement about most corporations being leftist is false. Look at the donation lists for the conservative canidates. It's like a who's who of the richest people in America.

Here is what it comes down to. The party system is an elaborate game designed to turn the people against themselves. The real enemy is not conservatives or liberals, it's the 1%. The people who control all the wealth and don't give a flying fuck about the middle class. You talk about Sweden being such a horrible place, but they outstrip us in every category except defense budget and the number of adults who believe in angels.

I'm pretty sure you and I want the same things. Safety for our families. Equal rights to all people, regardless of race, gender, cultural background, religion, or sexual orientation. The ability to make a living wage. Hospitals we can go to without going into debt for the rest of our lives. GOOD education for our children. Quality food, not pumped full of poisons. The right to pursue happiness.

Instead of fighting among ourselves, bickering over semantics, we should unite and focus our efforts. Only through cooperation will we create a better future for our children.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Stephen Colbert :P But i'm no American.

 

Incidentally, senator Elisabeth Warren had a lot to say, convincingly on the topic of Treyflix above.

Edited by Terex
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites