Accountable wrote: I would've been disappointed otherwise.
Between the two of us I'm sure you're the better man.:-6
A political concensus
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: Is it Swedish tradition to sidestep a touchy issue & disguise it as insufferable arrogance, or is it just your personal charm?
We are known for sidestepping nothing and being almost childishly honest, actually. Otherwise I wouldn’t have told you straight out what I thought of your comment. It seems to me that meeting ignorance “head on†is far bolder in the face of “touchy†(as you call it) than walking off unheard.
But with your reference to disguise, I may be individual in that when a 2-year-old child points at an airplane I reply that is an airplane and I don’t take much notice of the fact that the child may actually be pointing to the aileron. Your comment on democracy makes me think that you’re not too understanding of the differences between democracy and communism.
Accountable wrote: I assume that this "sharing" is mandated by law, thus compulsory.
Compulsory? Do you pay taxes in your country? Are they “compulsory� Yes? We too. The difference being that our taxes are fair to ALL our citizens whereas yours are criminally unjust and keep billions of dollars in the pockets of a few while millions of your citizens haven’t got squat doodie. That, by the way ArnoldLayne, is an observation of social/governmental reality - NOT a slur on Accountable's personal stature.
Accountable wrote: Of course, if people give voluntarily of their own wealth to help the poor, I am in awe.
Of course, if I see destitute citizens of any country falling through the cracks of any legal system I am in disgust.
We are known for sidestepping nothing and being almost childishly honest, actually. Otherwise I wouldn’t have told you straight out what I thought of your comment. It seems to me that meeting ignorance “head on†is far bolder in the face of “touchy†(as you call it) than walking off unheard.
But with your reference to disguise, I may be individual in that when a 2-year-old child points at an airplane I reply that is an airplane and I don’t take much notice of the fact that the child may actually be pointing to the aileron. Your comment on democracy makes me think that you’re not too understanding of the differences between democracy and communism.
Accountable wrote: I assume that this "sharing" is mandated by law, thus compulsory.
Compulsory? Do you pay taxes in your country? Are they “compulsory� Yes? We too. The difference being that our taxes are fair to ALL our citizens whereas yours are criminally unjust and keep billions of dollars in the pockets of a few while millions of your citizens haven’t got squat doodie. That, by the way ArnoldLayne, is an observation of social/governmental reality - NOT a slur on Accountable's personal stature.
Accountable wrote: Of course, if people give voluntarily of their own wealth to help the poor, I am in awe.
Of course, if I see destitute citizens of any country falling through the cracks of any legal system I am in disgust.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
And about the more important issue:
Accountable wrote:
Either way, I am extremely interested in how the society keeps the average citizen motivated to exel, rather than sitting back waiting for the more affluent to share their wealth with them.
I'm continuing this on the off chance that you actually know as much as you think you do. Generally, arrogant people bore me. Arrogance is usually a sign of low self-esteem. People I place in this category assume that anything they know must be easy for anyone to know, simply because someone of their calibre know it. Therefore, anyone who doesn't know these things must be stupid beyond belief, being even lower than them. Sometimes that improves with age, sometimes they try to find self-respect through chemicals.
Accountable wrote:
Either way, I am extremely interested in how the society keeps the average citizen motivated to exel, rather than sitting back waiting for the more affluent to share their wealth with them.
I'm continuing this on the off chance that you actually know as much as you think you do. Generally, arrogant people bore me. Arrogance is usually a sign of low self-esteem. People I place in this category assume that anything they know must be easy for anyone to know, simply because someone of their calibre know it. Therefore, anyone who doesn't know these things must be stupid beyond belief, being even lower than them. Sometimes that improves with age, sometimes they try to find self-respect through chemicals.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: And about the more important issue:
I'm continuing this on the off chance that you actually know as much as you think you do. Generally, arrogant people bore me. Arrogance is usually a sign of low self-esteem. People I place in this category assume that anything they know must be easy for anyone to know, simply because someone of their calibre know it. Therefore, anyone who doesn't know these things must be stupid beyond belief, being even lower than them. Sometimes that improves with age, sometimes they try to find self-respect through chemicals.
No. I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t know “this†or “that†is “stupid beyond beliefâ€. I don’t think it – I don’t say it – and I don’t believe it. What I do think is that someone who spouts off a load of rubbish (that has little or nothing to do with fact) is worse than arrogant. Such people, as you, could have asked about the definition of democracy and how it covers a range of political spheres. You could have asked if Sweden really is as good as I say. You could have asked if what I said about the U.S. can be backed up with proof. You could have asked many things to prove your point, if you actually have any. You could have discussed my point to see if there is anything substantial in it - but your sort never does ask. But rather spits out the first thing that pops into your head with the express purpose of criticising what it is that you don’t really understand.
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
This post of yours’ above was the last chance you had to learn something. You could have called upon my good spirit and started off afresh in an air of friendship but you blew that too.
I think I’ll leave you to your ignorant arrogance and carry on with the other fine members of this board. Luckily, your type is rare here.
I'm continuing this on the off chance that you actually know as much as you think you do. Generally, arrogant people bore me. Arrogance is usually a sign of low self-esteem. People I place in this category assume that anything they know must be easy for anyone to know, simply because someone of their calibre know it. Therefore, anyone who doesn't know these things must be stupid beyond belief, being even lower than them. Sometimes that improves with age, sometimes they try to find self-respect through chemicals.
No. I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t know “this†or “that†is “stupid beyond beliefâ€. I don’t think it – I don’t say it – and I don’t believe it. What I do think is that someone who spouts off a load of rubbish (that has little or nothing to do with fact) is worse than arrogant. Such people, as you, could have asked about the definition of democracy and how it covers a range of political spheres. You could have asked if Sweden really is as good as I say. You could have asked if what I said about the U.S. can be backed up with proof. You could have asked many things to prove your point, if you actually have any. You could have discussed my point to see if there is anything substantial in it - but your sort never does ask. But rather spits out the first thing that pops into your head with the express purpose of criticising what it is that you don’t really understand.
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
This post of yours’ above was the last chance you had to learn something. You could have called upon my good spirit and started off afresh in an air of friendship but you blew that too.
I think I’ll leave you to your ignorant arrogance and carry on with the other fine members of this board. Luckily, your type is rare here.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: No. I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t know “this†or “that†is “stupid beyond beliefâ€. I don’t think it – I don’t say it – and I don’t believe it. What I do think is that someone who spouts off a load of rubbish (that has little or nothing to do with fact) is worse than arrogant. Such people, as you, could have asked about the definition of democracy and how it covers a range of political spheres. You could have asked if Sweden really is as good as I say. You could have asked if what I said about the U.S. can be backed up with proof. You could have asked many things to prove your point, if you actually have any. You could have discussed my point to see if there is anything substantial in it - but your sort never does ask. But rather spits out the first thing that pops into your head with the express purpose of criticising what it is that you don’t really understand.
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
This post of yours’ above was the last chance you had to learn something. You could have called upon my good spirit and started off afresh in an air of friendship but you blew that too.
I think I’ll leave you to your ignorant arrogance and carry on with the other fine members of this board. Luckily, your type is rare here.
:( Does that mean you won't address my question?
Accountable wrote: Either way, I am extremely interested in how the society keeps the average citizen motivated to exel, rather than sitting back waiting for the more affluent to share their wealth with them.
:-1
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
This post of yours’ above was the last chance you had to learn something. You could have called upon my good spirit and started off afresh in an air of friendship but you blew that too.
I think I’ll leave you to your ignorant arrogance and carry on with the other fine members of this board. Luckily, your type is rare here.
:( Does that mean you won't address my question?
Accountable wrote: Either way, I am extremely interested in how the society keeps the average citizen motivated to exel, rather than sitting back waiting for the more affluent to share their wealth with them.
:-1
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
ArnoldLayne wrote: I'm not gonna pretend to compete on an intellectual level with you .I have neither the knowledge and education nor the desire. Your level of arragance and rudeness will get you nowhere on this forum. Accountable, far from being rare on this forum is very popular and respected part of a community, on which you seem to have dumped yourself ( without even so much as an introduction ). Why do you seem to think anybody would want to learn from someone so patronisingly opinionated and dismissive. Its hardly suprising you will find us so defensive of each other in a climate of arrogance. I see no good spirit on your part nor an air of friendship, so if you want to leave Accountable to the "other fine members of this board " great cos luckily YOUR type is rare hereI luv you too, man! :-6
A political concensus
posted by high threshold
I brought up this difference between Sweden and Finland only as a common-man’s view to the ever-increasing frustration we are experiencing and the distinct lack of just such experience in Finland. You may not agree on the importance of such with regards to your issue but "the domino factor" must be taken into account in any case. Naturally, it's more complicated than what this tiny corner of the Forum can accommodate.
I think you really underestimate the calibre of some of the posters on this forum, stick around you might be surprised.
posted by high threshold
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
It's bad enough being accused of being anti american every time you say anything critical about the US administration and it happens often enough on the forum anyway without you having to assume you're being accused of being anti american.
I agree with accountable you're dodging the question. Taxation policy if used as a means of redistributing wealth throughout the population many would regard as a basic socialist approach-used to one of the labour party's policies in the UK, but is it communism?
posted by accountable
Compulsory "sharing" of wealth is mutually exclusive with freedom. And since when is that a democratic principle? That's more a communist principle.
This subject would make a great thread.
I would ask you is allowing a small elite to garner everything to themselves and alter the taxation structure so they can keep it and taking steps to prevent govt using tax money for social welfare and reform conducive to a free society? What is government for?
Socialist, communist, liberal have very different meanings to most europeans. I have an impression that most americans see them as synonymous. But if you talk about the issues and avoid pejorative words there is a lot of consensus. Even if there is not who wants a discussion forum where nobody disagrees?
posted by high threshold
Olaf Palme was a thorn in the side of the U.S. as we were a living example of true democratic principles and the sharing of wealth to all citizens while taking care of everyone with regards to income, housing, medical cares, freedom (speech, expression and movement), paid holidays (six weeks each year), racial equality, etc. The United States was (and is) far behind, despite their claim to the contrary, although since they assassinated Olaf Palme, our standards have sunk notably.
I would not be so smug about the quality of your society given some of the acts carried out in the name of creating a better society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... 290661.stm
The Swedish government has approved a draft document granting compensation to thousands of women who were forcibly sterilised as part of a 40-year eugenics programme.
The government has agreed to grant around $21,150 to each of the victims.
Officials have given the document to their lawyers to iron out the details, but no major changes are expected.
Two years ago, an investigative reporter uncovered the policy carried out between 1936 and 1976 of forcibly sterilising women considered socially unfit.
They included women released from prison, the mentally ill, people with learning difficulties, the poor, epileptics, alcoholics and women of "mixed racial quality".
Underneath every utopia there is always a stinking sewer somewhere and a forgetful conscience somewhere else.
I brought up this difference between Sweden and Finland only as a common-man’s view to the ever-increasing frustration we are experiencing and the distinct lack of just such experience in Finland. You may not agree on the importance of such with regards to your issue but "the domino factor" must be taken into account in any case. Naturally, it's more complicated than what this tiny corner of the Forum can accommodate.
I think you really underestimate the calibre of some of the posters on this forum, stick around you might be surprised.
posted by high threshold
Your purpose is crystal clear. You did not like what I said about the U.S. but rather than do some research to find out if what I said was true (or not) you took the cowards way and tossed out a smokescreen assortment of crap that has nothing to do with Sweden, in hopes that some of it would hit the mark. In your mind you saw nothing in front of you but U.S. versus Sweden simply because you take everything personally. That’s your little problem and I suspect you’ll have to live with it for the rest of your life.
It's bad enough being accused of being anti american every time you say anything critical about the US administration and it happens often enough on the forum anyway without you having to assume you're being accused of being anti american.
I agree with accountable you're dodging the question. Taxation policy if used as a means of redistributing wealth throughout the population many would regard as a basic socialist approach-used to one of the labour party's policies in the UK, but is it communism?
posted by accountable
Compulsory "sharing" of wealth is mutually exclusive with freedom. And since when is that a democratic principle? That's more a communist principle.
This subject would make a great thread.
I would ask you is allowing a small elite to garner everything to themselves and alter the taxation structure so they can keep it and taking steps to prevent govt using tax money for social welfare and reform conducive to a free society? What is government for?
Socialist, communist, liberal have very different meanings to most europeans. I have an impression that most americans see them as synonymous. But if you talk about the issues and avoid pejorative words there is a lot of consensus. Even if there is not who wants a discussion forum where nobody disagrees?
posted by high threshold
Olaf Palme was a thorn in the side of the U.S. as we were a living example of true democratic principles and the sharing of wealth to all citizens while taking care of everyone with regards to income, housing, medical cares, freedom (speech, expression and movement), paid holidays (six weeks each year), racial equality, etc. The United States was (and is) far behind, despite their claim to the contrary, although since they assassinated Olaf Palme, our standards have sunk notably.
I would not be so smug about the quality of your society given some of the acts carried out in the name of creating a better society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... 290661.stm
The Swedish government has approved a draft document granting compensation to thousands of women who were forcibly sterilised as part of a 40-year eugenics programme.
The government has agreed to grant around $21,150 to each of the victims.
Officials have given the document to their lawyers to iron out the details, but no major changes are expected.
Two years ago, an investigative reporter uncovered the policy carried out between 1936 and 1976 of forcibly sterilising women considered socially unfit.
They included women released from prison, the mentally ill, people with learning difficulties, the poor, epileptics, alcoholics and women of "mixed racial quality".
Underneath every utopia there is always a stinking sewer somewhere and a forgetful conscience somewhere else.
A political concensus
OpenMind wrote: I would be interested in learning how people feel about the current political structure. Do you think it represents and fulfills your needs?
I'm extremely fond of representative democracy. I should know, I've been to every continent on this planet and most of the countries in them. I never once saw a system I liked better, and I saw a plethora that were far, far worse.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that our system is slightly out of kilter right now.
1. Although there are other parties besides Democrat and Republican, they do not have the money to get enough media coverage and by that get votes.
2. There are no parties that are a nice moderate middle-of-the-road, even though compromise has always been the cornerstone of American politics. The Libertarians come close, but their version of reality is unrealistic and would most likely result in a return to the Wild West days.
3. Because of the media (CRAP! Is there anything in our society they don't poison?!!) it is virtually impossible to get elected to a high office if you don't look like a movie star or have the budget to saturate the airwaves with ads. Think about it, do you think Abraham Lincoln with his ugly mug could be elected these days?
Do you think that a political structure should be executed at a local, national or worldwide level?
I have a solution, it's workable...but you won't like it. That's OK, though, after I become a billionaire, I won't need your approval.
For a Utopia to be created, it must be based in reality.
1. Get rid of all national governments, and replace them with a centralized base of co-functioning Series Supercomputers, Give them autonomous decision-making ability, input all world resources and problems, rely on them for allocation. If there's a drought in Uganda, and a surplus of wheat in Russia, then the computers would ship the wheat to the famine.
If any country declares war, the Supercomputers could mobilize the resources of the entire planet to crush the rebellion...but that would be a last resort, to be used only if the "treatments" don't work. (See below)
2. Get rid of all national boundries, replace it with "The Family" in reference to all mankind. For example, "The Family's colonies on the moon have been very productive this year."
3. Genetically shape all of mankind to a common look. Preferably, a slightly Chinese-eyed, medium build, tan skin colored race. No more racism. Genetic engineering is not necessary, simply use the computers to decide the people with the genetics needed to produce the best children. they get permission to reproduce, nobody else does. (But no one will complain: See "Treatments")
4. Test children for abilites constanty during growth, let the Supercomputer, let's call it "Unicomp" or "Uni" for short would decide the best use of their talents for the betterment of the Family and assign them to their specialties at adulthood. No more unempolyment.
5. Give each human being "treatments" once a month through an infusion disc placed on the arm. This infusion disc would pass chemicals directly through the skin. Included would be a birth control chemical, an exfolient to get rid of the need for shaving, and assorted neurological chemicals to keep the people "happy and satisfied" and control excess, irrational emotion.
6. Put a bracelet on each persons arm. To go anywhere, you must touch the bracelet to a scanner, and reiceve permission from the computer first. This prevents uneccessary waste of resources and energy. You could claim a vacation occasionally, but only if the computer could allocate the resources and could spare you from your job. All efforts would be directed towards the common goal.
7. As a back-up system, counselors with portable laptops would oversee all members of the family regularly to look for aberrant behavior. Children would be taught to immediately contact one of these counselors if they saw any unusual behavior.
8. All competitive sports will be removed, since competition itself would have to be removed. Why compete, when you are assigned everything you need for life? Instead, mandatory group exercises will be required for the entire population every morning.
9. Since old age is a drain on resources, and the investment of resources and materials in their existance in old age is less than the returns, then they must be eliminated. The average age of life should be terminated at around 72. The computer will determine the age of death, and it could increase as medicine gets better.
10. With the end of war, all resources previously devoted to warfare and weapons (and those resources are considerable!) can now be used for space exploration. In the asteroid belt there are metals enough for millenia of expansion, including asteroids the size of Texas made out of pure gold. Giant Icebergs in Saturn's rings could be towed to Mars and crashed there, creating oceans and an atmosphere.
So there you have it...everything you are asking for. No worrries, permanent employment, no corporations, no racism, no war, no strife, no nationalism, no corruption, no hunger, no want. Nothing but the shining Family working towards mankind's future in the stars.
Should the electorate be more involved in the political decisions that are made or are you happy to leave this to an elected group?
Assuming you don't like my previous ideas, the electorate should have absolutely no independent decision-making power. They should be forced to vote with the majority of their group.
Should groups of individuals hold power over a society or should they be more responsive to its electorate?
Let's face it, some tough decisions wil never be made if it's left up to the masses. For example, let's say we determine it's in the best interests of the country that wealth be capped at one billion dollars. Any amount that is made over that is to be dispersed to the people by the government. Does anyone here honestly think the ultra-wealthy would go along with this decision?
I'm extremely fond of representative democracy. I should know, I've been to every continent on this planet and most of the countries in them. I never once saw a system I liked better, and I saw a plethora that were far, far worse.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that our system is slightly out of kilter right now.
1. Although there are other parties besides Democrat and Republican, they do not have the money to get enough media coverage and by that get votes.
2. There are no parties that are a nice moderate middle-of-the-road, even though compromise has always been the cornerstone of American politics. The Libertarians come close, but their version of reality is unrealistic and would most likely result in a return to the Wild West days.
3. Because of the media (CRAP! Is there anything in our society they don't poison?!!) it is virtually impossible to get elected to a high office if you don't look like a movie star or have the budget to saturate the airwaves with ads. Think about it, do you think Abraham Lincoln with his ugly mug could be elected these days?
Do you think that a political structure should be executed at a local, national or worldwide level?
I have a solution, it's workable...but you won't like it. That's OK, though, after I become a billionaire, I won't need your approval.
For a Utopia to be created, it must be based in reality.
1. Get rid of all national governments, and replace them with a centralized base of co-functioning Series Supercomputers, Give them autonomous decision-making ability, input all world resources and problems, rely on them for allocation. If there's a drought in Uganda, and a surplus of wheat in Russia, then the computers would ship the wheat to the famine.
If any country declares war, the Supercomputers could mobilize the resources of the entire planet to crush the rebellion...but that would be a last resort, to be used only if the "treatments" don't work. (See below)
2. Get rid of all national boundries, replace it with "The Family" in reference to all mankind. For example, "The Family's colonies on the moon have been very productive this year."
3. Genetically shape all of mankind to a common look. Preferably, a slightly Chinese-eyed, medium build, tan skin colored race. No more racism. Genetic engineering is not necessary, simply use the computers to decide the people with the genetics needed to produce the best children. they get permission to reproduce, nobody else does. (But no one will complain: See "Treatments")
4. Test children for abilites constanty during growth, let the Supercomputer, let's call it "Unicomp" or "Uni" for short would decide the best use of their talents for the betterment of the Family and assign them to their specialties at adulthood. No more unempolyment.
5. Give each human being "treatments" once a month through an infusion disc placed on the arm. This infusion disc would pass chemicals directly through the skin. Included would be a birth control chemical, an exfolient to get rid of the need for shaving, and assorted neurological chemicals to keep the people "happy and satisfied" and control excess, irrational emotion.
6. Put a bracelet on each persons arm. To go anywhere, you must touch the bracelet to a scanner, and reiceve permission from the computer first. This prevents uneccessary waste of resources and energy. You could claim a vacation occasionally, but only if the computer could allocate the resources and could spare you from your job. All efforts would be directed towards the common goal.
7. As a back-up system, counselors with portable laptops would oversee all members of the family regularly to look for aberrant behavior. Children would be taught to immediately contact one of these counselors if they saw any unusual behavior.
8. All competitive sports will be removed, since competition itself would have to be removed. Why compete, when you are assigned everything you need for life? Instead, mandatory group exercises will be required for the entire population every morning.
9. Since old age is a drain on resources, and the investment of resources and materials in their existance in old age is less than the returns, then they must be eliminated. The average age of life should be terminated at around 72. The computer will determine the age of death, and it could increase as medicine gets better.
10. With the end of war, all resources previously devoted to warfare and weapons (and those resources are considerable!) can now be used for space exploration. In the asteroid belt there are metals enough for millenia of expansion, including asteroids the size of Texas made out of pure gold. Giant Icebergs in Saturn's rings could be towed to Mars and crashed there, creating oceans and an atmosphere.
So there you have it...everything you are asking for. No worrries, permanent employment, no corporations, no racism, no war, no strife, no nationalism, no corruption, no hunger, no want. Nothing but the shining Family working towards mankind's future in the stars.
Should the electorate be more involved in the political decisions that are made or are you happy to leave this to an elected group?
Assuming you don't like my previous ideas, the electorate should have absolutely no independent decision-making power. They should be forced to vote with the majority of their group.
Should groups of individuals hold power over a society or should they be more responsive to its electorate?
Let's face it, some tough decisions wil never be made if it's left up to the masses. For example, let's say we determine it's in the best interests of the country that wealth be capped at one billion dollars. Any amount that is made over that is to be dispersed to the people by the government. Does anyone here honestly think the ultra-wealthy would go along with this decision?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
A political concensus
Thank you, Jives, for your input to my question. That made for very interesting reading.
You'll excuse me if I don't comment at this point. When I think that everyone that is going to post an opinion on this thread has done so, I will post my comments on a new thread.
You'll excuse me if I don't comment at this point. When I think that everyone that is going to post an opinion on this thread has done so, I will post my comments on a new thread.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
Okey dokey, Mr I'm-too-special-to-post-my-superior-opinion-on-this-commoners'-thread. :yh_tong2
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: Okey dokey, Mr I'm-too-special-to-post-my-superior-opinion-on-this-commoners'-thread. :yh_tong2uh, Open Mind...isn't this YOUR thread? :p
A political concensus
posted by jives
Let's face it, some tough decisions wil never be made if it's left up to the masses. For example, let's say we determine it's in the best interests of the country that wealth be capped at one billion dollars. Any amount that is made over that is to be dispersed to the people by the government. Does anyone here honestly think the ultra-wealthy would go along with this decision?
As the owner of the power company maybe you should have consulted me first:sneaky:
If enough disagree who cares if the ultra wealthy/king/dictator would go along or not. The real power is with them only so long as they can get away with it.
Let's face it, some tough decisions wil never be made if it's left up to the masses. For example, let's say we determine it's in the best interests of the country that wealth be capped at one billion dollars. Any amount that is made over that is to be dispersed to the people by the government. Does anyone here honestly think the ultra-wealthy would go along with this decision?
As the owner of the power company maybe you should have consulted me first:sneaky:
If enough disagree who cares if the ultra wealthy/king/dictator would go along or not. The real power is with them only so long as they can get away with it.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
ArnoldLayne wrote: "Accountable" (is) "far from being rare on this forum ..."
Oh, joy of joys.
Oh, joy of joys.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: posted by accountable
[gmc then posted some tripe from off the top of Acc's head that didn't post here.
]
I would ask you is allowing a small elite to garner everything to themselves and alter the taxation structure so they can keep it and taking steps to prevent govt using tax money for social welfare and reform conducive to a free society? What is government for? I believe it is condicive to a free society to allow the big and the small to garner for themselves that which they can garner. I am of course against altering the taxation structure so they can keep it - the taxation structure should allow them to keep the vast majority of it without alterations. I believe rich and poor alike should take steps to prevent gov't using tax money for social welfare. Reform is too broad a term to address in this context. The purpose of government (in the USA) is not to govern, or control; it never truly was. The term is a misnomer. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
gmc wrote: Socialist, communist, liberal have very different meanings to most europeans. I have an impression that most americans see them as synonymous. But if you talk about the issues and avoid pejorative words there is a lot of consensus. Even if there is not who wants a discussion forum where nobody disagrees?I don't see a tremendous difference between Marxist communist ideals (which never happened in the USSR) and socialism. Looks good on paper, but can't last indefinitely. The one problem I see with all three is that they promote mediocrity. Why try to exel when even the laziest sloth gets what he needs? Why try to exel when any extra you gain will go to that sloth?
[gmc then posted some tripe from off the top of Acc's head that didn't post here.
]I would ask you is allowing a small elite to garner everything to themselves and alter the taxation structure so they can keep it and taking steps to prevent govt using tax money for social welfare and reform conducive to a free society? What is government for? I believe it is condicive to a free society to allow the big and the small to garner for themselves that which they can garner. I am of course against altering the taxation structure so they can keep it - the taxation structure should allow them to keep the vast majority of it without alterations. I believe rich and poor alike should take steps to prevent gov't using tax money for social welfare. Reform is too broad a term to address in this context. The purpose of government (in the USA) is not to govern, or control; it never truly was. The term is a misnomer. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
gmc wrote: Socialist, communist, liberal have very different meanings to most europeans. I have an impression that most americans see them as synonymous. But if you talk about the issues and avoid pejorative words there is a lot of consensus. Even if there is not who wants a discussion forum where nobody disagrees?I don't see a tremendous difference between Marxist communist ideals (which never happened in the USSR) and socialism. Looks good on paper, but can't last indefinitely. The one problem I see with all three is that they promote mediocrity. Why try to exel when even the laziest sloth gets what he needs? Why try to exel when any extra you gain will go to that sloth?
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Oh, joy of joys.you're a pretentious ass.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Oh, joy of joys.You know what would bring me joy, High Opinion of Yourself? If you could tell me how that superior society of yours keeps the average citizen motivated to exel, rather than sitting back waiting for the more affluent to share their wealth with them.
I'm still waiting for your response.
I'm still waiting for your response.
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Oh, joy of joys.
You want me to sing Joy to the World?
*clearing throat*
You want me to sing Joy to the World?
*clearing throat*
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
ELF wrote: You want me to sing Joy to the World?
Yes please! I've often wondered how it should REALLY sound.
I usually just sing "Ho, hum, de-dum ... " and let the others drown me out. :wah:
Yes please! I've often wondered how it should REALLY sound.
I usually just sing "Ho, hum, de-dum ... " and let the others drown me out. :wah:A political concensus
Nah, that's the Little Drummer Boy................
Only Santa says ho-ho-ho.................
Us elves, well, we do what we gotta do...................
Only Santa says ho-ho-ho.................
Us elves, well, we do what we gotta do...................
A political concensus
ya know, HO means another thing in my world. :wah:
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
ELF wrote: Nah, that's the Little Drummer Boy................
Only Santa says ho-ho-ho.................
Us elves, well, we do what we gotta do...................
Oh. I though the Little Drummer Boy went something like .... "a thump on your bum"
Only Santa says ho-ho-ho.................
Us elves, well, we do what we gotta do...................
Oh. I though the Little Drummer Boy went something like .... "a thump on your bum"
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
What ever happened to Bob Cratchet, Elf? Didn't he open a veterinary surgery specializing in geese?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
I heard that your lot got into a punch-up with Snow White’s "gang of 12" and you broke Doc’s glasses. I hope that you reimbursed him for the cost.
A political concensus
Not me, we went straight for the gold mine......................
And the stash of hooch Snow White kep in her cottage.............
And the stash of hooch Snow White kep in her cottage.............
A political concensus
oh, and btw open mind, consensus is spelled consensus even in england. pseudo-intellectuals are so boring.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Oh. I though the Little Drummer Boy went something like .... "a thump on your bum" :yh_rotfl
:yh_rotflA political concensus
Accountable wrote: Okey dokey, Mr I'm-too-special-to-post-my-superior-opinion-on-this-commoners'-thread. :yh_tong2
I have been well brought to account by Accountable. My apologies, you are quite right. I will rectify this oversight right now. This is my opinion.
Politics should cater for and be responsive to the individual and be able to change quickly to adjust to the changing opinions and needs of the individual.
Political structures should never become larger than a community so as to be a true reflection of the people.
Politics should not be a means for individuals or groups to exert power and control or coercion over the people.
The individuals should have simple and clear advertised access to the political body.
A "community" needs to be defined.
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
So there you have it!
I have been well brought to account by Accountable. My apologies, you are quite right. I will rectify this oversight right now. This is my opinion.
Politics should cater for and be responsive to the individual and be able to change quickly to adjust to the changing opinions and needs of the individual.
Political structures should never become larger than a community so as to be a true reflection of the people.
Politics should not be a means for individuals or groups to exert power and control or coercion over the people.
The individuals should have simple and clear advertised access to the political body.
A "community" needs to be defined.
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
So there you have it!
A political concensus
uh, Open Mind...isn't this YOUR thread? :p
oh, and btw open mind, consensus is spelled consensus even in england. pseudo-intellectuals are so boring.
Yes, LC, this is my thread.
So, at last, I have made a spelling mistake. You are quite right, it should be spelt as you say. Presumably, you have pulled me up because I have only made the one spelling mistake. Other posters make so many spelling mistakes, it would be too tiresome to correct them, eh.
A political concensus
Oh boy OM they are sure slapping you around today..!! Duck it works for me..!! ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
OpenMind wrote: I have been well brought to account by Accountable. My apologies, you are quite right. I will rectify this oversight right now. This is my opinion.
Politics should cater for and be responsive to the individual and be able to change quickly to adjust to the changing opinions and needs of the individual.
Political structures should never become larger than a community so as to be a true reflection of the people.
Politics should not be a means for individuals or groups to exert power and control or coercion over the people.
The individuals should have simple and clear advertised access to the political body.
A "community" needs to be defined.
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
So there you have it!
The international body would have to be an inter-community body. It would be millions! We'd need to regionalize somehow. Neat utopian idea though.
Politics should cater for and be responsive to the individual and be able to change quickly to adjust to the changing opinions and needs of the individual.
Political structures should never become larger than a community so as to be a true reflection of the people.
Politics should not be a means for individuals or groups to exert power and control or coercion over the people.
The individuals should have simple and clear advertised access to the political body.
A "community" needs to be defined.
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
So there you have it!
The international body would have to be an inter-community body. It would be millions! We'd need to regionalize somehow. Neat utopian idea though.
A political concensus
CARLA wrote: Oh boy OM they are sure slapping you around today..!! Duck it works for me..!!
'Tis nothing my fair lady. Methinks it is High Threshold who bears the bruises.
How are you Carla. It has been a long working week for me, and there's more to come before Xmas.
Oh boy OM they are sure slapping you around today..!! Duck it works for me..!! 'Tis nothing my fair lady. Methinks it is High Threshold who bears the bruises.
How are you Carla. It has been a long working week for me, and there's more to come before Xmas.
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: The international body would have to be an inter-community body. It would be millions! We'd need to regionalize somehow.
You are quite right Acc. I would not like to see it become complex, though. Neither would I like to see it used as a power tool by individuals for their own ends. This is a problem I have not been able to resolve as yet.
You are quite right Acc. I would not like to see it become complex, though. Neither would I like to see it used as a power tool by individuals for their own ends. This is a problem I have not been able to resolve as yet.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
ELF wrote: Not me, we went straight for the gold mine......................
And the stash of hooch Snow White kep in her cottage.............
Are those the goods that she brought back from her visit to Alice, over in Wonderland? I hear it’s grade-A stuff!
And the stash of hooch Snow White kep in her cottage.............
Are those the goods that she brought back from her visit to Alice, over in Wonderland? I hear it’s grade-A stuff!
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: â€A pretentious ass.â€? Tsk, tsk! That wasn’t a very nice thing to say to me, even for you.
But I suppose that you truly, honestly, and sincerely believed that I was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction …… and that was the only incentive you needed. So shall we just say that you were duped then, and let you off the hook? :yh_tong2
Mental oblivion ? Self depracation or a long look in the mirror ?
But I suppose that you truly, honestly, and sincerely believed that I was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction …… and that was the only incentive you needed. So shall we just say that you were duped then, and let you off the hook? :yh_tong2
Mental oblivion ? Self depracation or a long look in the mirror ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
lady cop wrote: " ... with any luck my email to admin will get you where you belong, in the toilet. "
Too lonely for you there, just you and the turds? So you think admin will take heed of your view and ignore your own outrageous, non-provoked behaviour? I think you'll be needing luck, Numbo!
Too lonely for you there, just you and the turds? So you think admin will take heed of your view and ignore your own outrageous, non-provoked behaviour? I think you'll be needing luck, Numbo!
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Nomad wrote: Mental oblivion ? Self depracation or a long look in the mirror ?
A little of both.
A little of both.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
lady cop wrote: see my post count dimwit? yes, they will listen to me.
Oh, I see! It's numbers you think swing the weight? I don't think so.
Oh, I see! It's numbers you think swing the weight? I don't think so.
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: A little of both.
Then with a self admitted disability would it be to your advantage to think before you speak ?
Then with a self admitted disability would it be to your advantage to think before you speak ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
lady cop wrote: no, stupid, it's the fact i am a respected fixture here. and you're ****.
Whew! Thank God for the asterix's, eh? You think admin will take that into consideration and give you some extra slack? - the numbers AND the asterix's?
Whew! Thank God for the asterix's, eh? You think admin will take that into consideration and give you some extra slack? - the numbers AND the asterix's?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Nomad wrote: Then with a self admitted disability would it be to your advantage to think before you speak ?
I always do. Is it not apparent?
I always do. Is it not apparent?
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Whew! Thank God for the asterix's, eh? You think admin will take that into consideration and give you some extra slack? - the numbers AND the asterix's?
Mental oblivion AND a high threshold for ignorance ? You've found yourself a tidy little niche.
Mental oblivion AND a high threshold for ignorance ? You've found yourself a tidy little niche.
I AM AWESOME MAN
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: I always do. Is it not apparent?
LOL! Perhaps the thought process needs some fine tuning then.
LOL! Perhaps the thought process needs some fine tuning then.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Nomad wrote: You've found yourself a tidy little niche.
Yes. Right alongside you. Shall we get married and get it over with?
Yes. Right alongside you. Shall we get married and get it over with?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Nomad wrote: LOL! Perhaps the thought process needs some fine tuning then.
I'm still working on it. It's the fault of this second-hand computer I've got. I can't get it to tweek just right.
I'm still working on it. It's the fault of this second-hand computer I've got. I can't get it to tweek just right.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
lady cop wrote: admin is sleeping like normal people. you'll be gone soon
Would you like to make a bet on that?
Would you like to make a bet on that?
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Yes. Right alongside you. Shall we get married and get it over with?
First Ill need some background please, hard documentation...solid facts and a pic (a close up please) there will be divorce proceedings, this will all take time. You promise not to leave me ?
First Ill need some background please, hard documentation...solid facts and a pic (a close up please) there will be divorce proceedings, this will all take time. You promise not to leave me ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Sorry Toots! I’ve got to run. But I’ll back on Monday, despite what you think. Until then you can carry on slandering me behind my back. That’s more your style anyway, eh? :-5
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
A political concensus
Nomad wrote: First Ill need some background please, hard documentation...solid facts and a pic (a close up please) there will be divorce proceedings, this will all take time. You promise not to leave me ?
Well, my proposal was really meant for miss piggy but I don’t think it would work out anyway so you’re in with a good shot. I’ll have to get back to you with that documentation (Monday perhaps) but I promise to be on my best behaviour and you’ll be swooning before you can say ……. uh ….. er .... what was that now?
“Never leave you� Promise!
Well, my proposal was really meant for miss piggy but I don’t think it would work out anyway so you’re in with a good shot. I’ll have to get back to you with that documentation (Monday perhaps) but I promise to be on my best behaviour and you’ll be swooning before you can say ……. uh ….. er .... what was that now?
“Never leave you� Promise!
A political concensus
High Threshold wrote: Well, my proposal was really meant for miss piggy
I haven't read this whole thread yet, though I am about to, but I want to ask one thing before I do: Are you referring to LC as "miss piggy"? Because if you are, you are A) stupid and B) a troll and I will gladly take the bet you're offering. You will very quickly hang yourself, of that I am sure, and this is the very first thing from you that I've read.
We should eliminate the "Threshold" part of your name and stick with just "High" because if you're going to try and tangle with LC, you must be. High, that is, in case I wasn't clear enough for you. (Some people need things explained to them.)
I haven't read this whole thread yet, though I am about to, but I want to ask one thing before I do: Are you referring to LC as "miss piggy"? Because if you are, you are A) stupid and B) a troll and I will gladly take the bet you're offering. You will very quickly hang yourself, of that I am sure, and this is the very first thing from you that I've read.
We should eliminate the "Threshold" part of your name and stick with just "High" because if you're going to try and tangle with LC, you must be. High, that is, in case I wasn't clear enough for you. (Some people need things explained to them.)
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.