 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A reassertion of basic American values
|
|
|
Subject: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:03 PM "The message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue." The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state â€" from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it â€" has gone bust. More here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: dick greenhaus Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM The income tax--which is what seems to be waht's referred to---dates back to 1862. Rich folks have, understandably, opposed it since then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: kendall Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:49 PM I wish I had more faith in the collective IQ of the voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Rapparee Date: 02 Sep 12 - 08:52 PM That's nice, Sawz. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: MarkS Date: 02 Sep 12 - 09:14 PM Folks, just remember one thing. Government never gave you one penny which it did not first take from you or from somebody else in the first place. I hope this is one basic value on which we can all agree. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 02 Sep 12 - 09:29 PM Taxes are the dues you pay for living in a civilized society. Try to contemplate for a moment what it would be like to live in a society that didn't collect taxes. There would be no roads and no bridges (other than, perhaps toll roads and toll bridges), no police departments, no fire departments, no public schools. . . . And that's just for starters. THINK about it!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Sep 12 - 09:40 PM Saws basic value: I'll get mine, the hell with the rest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:37 PM Fucking idiot. When society all but collapsed throughout large parts of the USA after the civil war - were people there in a better state? What gradually improved their lot? The restoration of government control and thus organisation. What pays for that? Simples! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Bobert Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:41 PM Saws represents the American values of the 1%.... No one else... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 03 Sep 12 - 12:37 AM Does Bobert think that only 1% of Americans do not value "...self determination, individual aspiration and genuine community..". If he does, he's out of touch with Liberal core values. It is the role of society, as represented by government, that is in contention. When the left and right start their conversations with what they have in common, they can get back to coexistance. When we allow our fellow citizens the right to believe stuff we disdain, the dialogue will begin. Of course, we would miss the Mudcat Marathon of Merriment these threads provide |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Penny S. Date: 03 Sep 12 - 03:28 AM Funny thing, from over here, when I think of basic American values, I think of the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution, and I think how good it would be to have had them over here, in the country which exported the ideas behind them (there are some amendments I might not welcome). But when I read some modern ideas about bAvs, I don't want them much. (I think the Americans whose values I respect and which seem to be in the founding spirit don't go on about them being American, which makes the difference.) Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:30 AM Unfortunately, in common usage in the US, the only ones who talk all that much about "Basic American Values" are really only talking about their own particular style of "Basic American Bigotry." (Just an observation based on decades of observation, that I WILL NOT DEBATE.) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:20 AM "It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue." Just a statement of unthinking, self-serving 'religious faith'. The stupid ideology of the American neo-liberal right has got the whole world into the present shitty economic mess. And despite that fact that most of their fatuous 'theories' (really just wild guesses based on selfish, avaricious, acquisitive hopes and dreams)have been shown to be complete rubbish, it seems that a lot of Americans just want more of the same! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:38 AM Basic American Values? Woody Guthrie, for a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: bobad Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:45 AM Typical right wing code speak extolling the Randist gospel - I'm alright Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST Date: 03 Sep 12 - 08:38 AM I have no problems with "self determination, individual aspiration and genuine community", musicmick... What I have problems with is folks who represent the rich throwing those values out there as if they ***own*** those values as these same people rig the deck, steal our labor, pollute or water, poison our air and think the deserve to do those things... Every opportunity that Saws has had here in Mudcat he comes down on the side of the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the polluters, the exploiters and the folks who don't have a clue what "genuine community" means... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Arkie Date: 03 Sep 12 - 09:46 AM Speaking of core values, everyone of the nasty, degrading, outright lies, and distortion of fact emails I receive comes from someone representing the so-called right wing. Everyone. I am not saying that I do not received skewed information from the progressive and even 'liberal' wing but it does not contain the venom nor outrageous and calculated falsehood. Speaking of core values, basic American values, why is it that those who use that term are satisfied that they can live in a country where they are free to practice those values. Why do they believe that they must enforce their values on everyone else. Forcing the moral system of one group upon all others is not an American value. Those who view taxes as wealth taken from them by the government are often involved in practices that exploit the wealth of others through manipulation of information and government (the 'American Way'). The wealth of the middle class is gradually declining. That money is going somewhere. The wealth of the upper 1-5% is increasing. Is that a co-incidence? Or the reassertion of basic American values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 03 Sep 12 - 11:05 AM The true believers, on both sides of thr aisle, are no more representative of American political and social creed than Donald Trump represents employers. They just make the most noise. The epithets found in these replies reinforces my assertion that we have stopped listening to anything that doesn't fit into our little packets of principals. I am, neither, wealthy nor privilaged but I do not envy or resent those who are. Some of them have worked long and hard for their bucks. Some have been born into wealth and that doesn't bother me at all. I will leave whatever I have, to my daughter and my grandson and, if it makes their lives easier, hooray. I have been a Marxist, in my day, but age and experience have taught me that Harpo was more cogent than Groucho, Chico or Karl. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: John P Date: 03 Sep 12 - 12:29 PM Yes, basic American values from the political party that includes anti-civil rights statements in its official platform. "The Land of the Free", but only if you look and act like a Republican. How can so many people claim to want freedom for all while they are busily reducing the freedoms of women, gay people, poor people, and people of color? "A Christian country", even though our Constitution denies it and many millions of Americans are not Christians -- and those who most loudly talk about being Christian are demonstrably the opposite. As for taxes -- it's really called civilization. Civilized people band together to accomplish things that individuals can't do alone. Roads, hospitals, schools, armies, police, fire fighters, courts, and, maybe someday, health care. "No Taxes" is really "I don't care about my fellow man" and "I'm an idiot that doesn't realize that civilization costs money" and "I've been bought by big corporations who want to get rid of all regulations". Conversations about the role of government would be OK if every corporation in the world was run on altruistic lines. Since all of our experience, however, is that without regulation we get raped in a variety of ways, I'd like an explanation of how lessening the role of government would actually work. And I would like an explanation of how the Republicans can talk about getting the governments out of our personal lives while they are legislating what adults can do in bed with each other. Answers? Anyone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 12 - 12:49 PM LEt's not get all asinine here. People pay taxes into any group in which they hope to see some kind of group action. National action like interstates, defense, national parks. State actions like highways and state parks and bridges. City and county actions like infrastructure, dogcatchers, and so on. Trying to re-cast this fasct of civilization as a corrupt redistribution of YOUR money to OTHER people by EVIL Governments is just twit-headed babble. Obviously when the flows get corrupted or are managed by stupid-heads, there are plenty of grounds for complaint. But don't be stupid about misidentifying the basic purpose--the creation of larger-scale projects. You think NASA would have landed on Mars without a tax system, or the Marines on Normandy's beaches, or I-95 the length of the coast? Come on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 02:59 PM John, in answer to your above post. It has taken fifty-some years for her ideas to permeate much of American politics, but here is what many Republican politicians, Libertarians, and in a very loose way, the Tea Party, currently embrace as part of their basic beliefs. Directly from the Ayn Rand Institute: "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth."This is the idea that governs Ayn Rand's—and Paul Ryan's—politico-economic position. But Ayn Rand was a rabid atheist and viewed anyone with religious beliefs of any kind as "irrational" (one can debate this, of course, but that's another discussion, so let's not confuse the issue at this point). However, much of the Right's base consists of religious people, including Christian Evangelicals and the "America is a Christian county" crowd, so Paul Ryan (along with other Republicans) is forced to distance himself from THIS ASPECT of Ayn Rand's philosophy, hence all his "God talk" during his speech at the Republican convention. This way, Republicans can push Ayn Rand's politics, economics, and general world view while trying to dodge the uncomfortable bits such as her hostility toward religious belief of any kind. Interesting to note that Ayn Rand herself would have a wall-eyed fit over this "cherry-picking" of aspects of her philosopy. She considered it all of a piece, and from the view of someone who actually understands her whole belief-system, it is a blatant contradiction and shows a lack of integrity! To get an in-depth idea of what the Right Wing is currently about as far as politics and economics are concerned—and if you have a strong stomach—read Atlas Shrugged and/or Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. Another of her seminal works is (!!) The Virtue of Selfishness. I've read all these when I was young, naïve, and stupid. So I have a fairly clear idea of what's going on in the minds of the current crop of Right Wingers. (Still thinking of emigrating to one of the Scandinavian countries). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Sep 12 - 03:23 PM ""It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue.""" No Sawz, a return to the old Republican mantra, as follows:- 1. The value of a citizen is directly proportional to the number of zeros on his paycheck. 2. A smack in the mouth or a bullet are the answer to all disputes. 3. The poor schmucks who work their socks off to produce the wealth for the valued citizens, if they get sick, can choose. Go without treatment, or starve!! After all, they're just indolent losers who don't have the ambition to join the seven zero elite. That's the ""basic values of American political culture:"" you are talking about, and it is nothing more or less than a measure of how far your America is from genuine civilisation. Thank God most here don't listen to your crap. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:00 PM "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:30 PM Sawzaw: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Right out of the Ayn Rand playbook! Don T.'s point 3. The poor schmucks who work their socks off to produce the wealth for the valued citizens, if they get sick, can choose. Go without treatment, or starve!! Ayn Rand calls these folks "moochers and parasites." If the Republicans win this time around....well....Sweden sounds like a nice country. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: bobad Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:40 PM I would venture that the OP and his/her fellow travellers of the right who hurl the "socialist" epithet at President Obama have no real understanding of the concept, they just use it as a form of invective signifying something evil that the poorly educated can rally behind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: pdq Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:44 PM "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." ~ Winston Churchill People who don't like the quote should take it up with the author. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue." Self-determination is the first myth. As Americans, we are dependent on government to keep our nation democratic rather than autocratic or fascistic. Genuine community can't exist without the state unless it becomes a warring tribe pitted against other warring tribes. Government serves many different functions and protects those who are less well off than Romney/Ryan/Ayn Rand and other fascist oligarchs. We need a strong central government to protect us from Libertarians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 12 - 05:49 PM There are hundreds of millions of working class Latin Americans who do not share your loathing or your misunderstanding of socialism, Sawzaw, and they have a radically different understanding of it than you do. They see it as the establishment of basic human rights and the ending of USA-backed corporate-fascist dictatorships. Hundreds of thousands of them have died at the hands of CIA-trained death squads and USA-financed military police since the end of WWII. And you know what they also believe in and have fought for all their lives? self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community It IS the USA and its CIA-backed dictators which have deprived them of those 3 things, along with, in many cases, their lives. You have no idea what socialism is in a democracy, and apparently no idea that it IS founded upon the very concept OF community, individual aspiration, and self-determination....whereas the Neo-fascist message that consistently comes from the USA is, in fact, the destruction of traditional communities all over the place, and their replacement with foreign-owned corporate monopolies and police states. Republicans don't know that. Neither do most Democrats. They are mostly unaware of it, because their mass media and their schools and their leaders don't tell them about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:08 PM Actually, Little Hawk, I do know what socialism is from reading Daniel DeLeon, Marx & Engels and whatever Fabians I could get ahold of. I know it from being involved with the SLP, the YSL and YPSL. I know it from a three year stay at a Habonim kibbutz. (I never carried a bomb because it was Sister Jennie's turn to throw but I think my creds are solid.) My intent is not to argue the Republican position. It is to get people to shut their ears, their eyes and their hearts. This battle stance we, and they, maintain does not serve our peoples or our principals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:23 PM The idea that one could learn socialism in a kibbutz... PMSL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM Oh - and whence the idea that Churchill had any finer principles? Look at his history, and the resounding answer the British people gave him when the right to elections was restored to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM When Sawzaw and pdq try to use "socialism" as a pejorative, they are merely joining the horde of know-nothing parrots who don't really know what the word "socialism" means and how the system works. One of the reasons I keep mentioning the Scandinavian countries is that they have had essentially socialist governments for quite a long time now, and it is working very well. A point which people like Sawzaw and pdq would rather not be brought up. We could learn a lot from the way Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark do things. Especially when you take a look at the statistics regarding such things as lack of poverty, along with nobody so rich they can BUY the government, leisure time in relation to work time, services available to the citizens (did you know that if you move to Sweden and you don't know the language, first of all, most people there can speak English, but the government will pay you to take a Swedish language course?), the very high level of education (by comparison, the U. S. should be ashamed of itself), the availability and quality of health care—and the figures on general level of happiness and satisfaction of the population. Tell a Swede, "You pay such high taxes!" and he or she will respond, "Yes, our taxes are high compared to yours, but look what we get for it!" We really should study them to see how they do it. "America is the greatest country in the world!!" I don't think so, and anyone who does needs to walk around the block a few times, see a bit of the world, and get a clue. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:34 PM I was addressing Sawzaw, actually. There are many forms of socialism, not just one form of it. Agreed? For instance, there is quite a bit of socialism right now in the western societies we all live in. I live in Canada. It is a society that mixes socialism and capitalism...as do most societies. They can exist side-by-side. They are not mutually exclusive in a mixed economy, and most places have a mixed economy. They are not an all-or-nothing proposition. In Canada socialism provides our nation with a public school system, a national radio show, national health insurance coverage, a national TV network, parks, libraries, roads, sewers, a police force, street cleaners, garbage pickup, municipal workers of many types, an armed forces, a secret service, courts, governmental institutions, prisons, local sports facilities, and a host of agencies to accomplish things, many of which...by their very nature...do NOT and CANNOT be run for profit but which still need to be done anyway. All those things are necessary in order to have a functioning modern society, and they are paid for through our taxes and done by government workers. If they were taken away, we'd no longer have a functioning society. We'd have anarchy and robber bandit gangs. At the same time, we have millions upon millions of capitalist businesses happening in every sphere of life where a profit can be obtained through individual initiative. Thus you have socialism and capitalism occurring side by side and in harmony. This is totally normal in most societies. People who rail against the evils of socialism don't seem to get that, therefore I don't think they really grasp what socialism is. If they think that to be "socialism" it must control absolutely EVERYTHING...this would be as silly as to say that in order to have the feminine gender in existence at all...EVERYONE must become a female. **** I presume you meant in your comments above that you want people NOT to shut their ears, their eyes and their hearts? If so, you left out the word "not". A society that does not shut its eyes, ears, and heart will come to the aid of the sick, will help everyone to get a good education, will provide vital public services, will enforce civil law, will provide fair and honest courts, will maintain police and armed forces, will ensure decent wages and working conditions, and WILL encourage self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community in every way it can, and that is done through a healthy combination of BOTH socialism AND capitalism...not through demonizing one of them and trying to wipe it out. The Republican Party demonizes the very idea of socialism and turns it into a mythical, fictional boogeyman to terrorize ignorant people into voting Republican. This is an exercise in either dishonesty or extreme ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:41 PM Don is dead right about the Scandinavian countries. A genuine reassertion of basic American values would, at this point, require a 2nd American Revolution. And not one that emanated from the Right. Basic American values have been wiped out quite some time ago by an alliance between corporatism and the military-industrial complex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: pdq Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM Propaganda Minister Firth is using his usual nasty debating trick of accusing people of saying and believing things they did not do, then smiting them for those actions. I simply gave the quote again with attribution. It was said by Winston Churchill. Today alone Propaganda Minister Firth has told us what Ayn Rand, several Mudcatters and numerous political folks believe. All absolute fabrications by his badd seff, all intended to smear people simply because they do not share his rather extreme political views. People are free to say what they believe, not to say (make up) what others believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM My 2nd to last post was directed to musicmic, Don. Just in case there was any confusion about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM You're raving, pdq. Your problem is that I'm telling it like it IS. Some folks can't stand that! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:05 PM The stupid answer to rejecting socialism is to lash out against anything involving a social contract, social progress, a just society, or any other ideal for the commons, and lash out hard against all such just to be sure they aren't sneaking something y you. What gibberish. Building a better society is not socialism, you dip-brain. Socialism as a method of government includes taking over the means of production. THe US Government has veered so far away from that pole that it now outsources everything the military used to do for itself to the private sector, people like Blackwater, and have thereby (unintelligently) seriously inflated the DoD budget even during peacetime. The US Government has occasionally had to intercede to prevent private business from failing completely--General Motors, Chrysler, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc. etc.--which is the absolute opposite of the "socialism" you are so terrified of. Evidently, you don't mind calling on the commons when your greedy turks have run your business into the ground. This is ridiculous fatuous mislabeling. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:10 PM By the way, pdq, how is it that I'm distorting what Ayn Rand said when I QUOTED HER DIRECTLY? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:34 PM Challenge, pdq. Where, exactly, have I misquoted you or misrepresented what you have said? Show me. Or else put up or shut up with your "Propaganda Minister" crap!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 03 Sep 12 - 11:58 PM Yes, Little Hawk, the right does demonize socialism because they don't know what it is. Modern leftists demonize the kibbutz experience for the same reason. Besides, in today's leftist party line, kibbutz=Jewish=oppressors so how can anything Jewish be OK? I believe that national health should be as available as national security, and for the same reason. Not even the most rigid rightists would end public education, fire protection, postal service or road maintainence. Just about everyone benefits from Social Security and Medicare and any politician who ran against these benefits would lose in a rout. Americans have spoken in the voting booths and, if they didn't vote our way, maybe, it's time to re-examine the message. It's easy to throw bricks at America and capitalism but. as long as the American people support it, that's the way it's gonna be. And, insulting the populace by calling them dupes doesn't seem to draw them to the liberal vision |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Sep 12 - 12:02 AM I love socialism. Without it, my country would be a gutted shell, a wasteland of violence and despair. I love capitalism too. Without it my country would not have lots of interesting stores and privately run small businesses selling interesting products and providing a great variety of independent possibilities of all kinds to their communities. I dislike corporatism, because it exists only for enlarging its own bottom line and has no social conscience...nor any loyalty to any nation or social ideal. Anyone who discounts the good uses and worthy application of both socialism and capitalism in a modern society, and who demonizes either one of them in a kneejerk fashion, has no idea how his own society really functions, doesn't grasp the record of history, has little idea how socialism or capitalism really function, and may well be teetering on the brink of total idiocy...or political fanaticism, which is pretty much the same thing. Basic American values have always combined socialism and capitalism. So have basic social values everywhere else in the western world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Sep 12 - 12:38 AM I agree, musicmic, that many leftists demonize the kibbutz experience. I don't, because I know almost nothing about it. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I do disagree with the general thrust of Zionist policy as it exists in the political state of Israel at present, but that's another matter. It has no bearing on my opinion of kibbutzes. I've lived on some occasions in cooperative communities which may share a good deal in common with a kibbutz, in fact. I have no objection to Jews whatsoever. There are a significant number of Jews who disagree radically with both Zionism and with present Israeli government policy. I find myself in agreement with those Jews when it comes to the political issues involved. It isn't capitalism that I have a problem with either...it's multi-national corporatism on a very large scale that I have a problem with, and I think it is destroying the original nature of traditional capitalism, which benefited local communities by providing millions of local jobs and by resulting in genuine competition. Corporatism has destroyed millions of local jobs in the western world by outsourcing them to distant places, mostly to Asia, places where people are so badly paid and treated that it almost amounts to slave labor. This has been aided and abetted by the western politicians through their so-called "Free Trade" agreements (the removal of protective tariffs on foreign imports from places with tremendously lower wages for their workers than we can possibly afford here). This is wiping out our traditional jobs and industries and destroying our middle class. The politicians sold out because the corporates own them and control them through lobbying (bribing). Thus...it is not capitalism I am throwing bricks at. It's corporatism. Yes, a great many Americans have been duped. So have a great many Canadians. I realize they don't like being told they are dupes...but I figure maybe someone has to tell them. The truth can hurt. What would you suggest as an alternative approach? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: kendall Date: 04 Sep 12 - 06:50 AM Sawzaw you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown. I've lived almost 80 years and I've learned a few things on the way.: Capitalism has failed time after time Communism has failed Socialism can not stand alone. There is only one system that can survive, a combination of capitalism and socialism.I see Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark ( the happiest people on earth)Canada and the UK as examples. Of course nothing is perfect and never was or ever will be. As long a human beings run it, it will be fucked up. Anyone who thinks pure capitalism is the answer doesn't understand the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Sep 12 - 07:01 AM "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: The Sandman Date: 04 Sep 12 - 07:10 AM ,newt gingrich has a plan health care for every woman and man, it wont cost much and i will tell you why cos when your ill you just go and die. written by tom paxton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: kendall Date: 04 Sep 12 - 09:04 AM We have wasted far more money bombing women and children than we have on social programs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 04 Sep 12 - 09:49 AM America has been coping with the dichotomy of socialism/capitalism for 150 years. It's not the economics that devide us, it's the philosophy. Capitalism is the logical extention of individualism. It values individual rights (freedom, independence, property, inheritence) and is the pioneer spirit that is the American dream. Socialism is a product of group conciousness and speaks to our sense of interdependence and fair play. Oddly, it calls upon the values of religious tradition. (Oddly, because religion seems to be the watchword of the right) It is in the spirit of democracy and diversity that America has managed this conflict with so little blood being shed, except for that little incident in the 1860s. The America haters, on this thread, can jeer but, with all its flaws, America was the first open society and is always the first to pitch in when a catastrophe occurs. (Charity and empathy are part of our natural ethos) Democracy, by definition, is dangerously unpredictable but I'll take it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 12 - 11:52 AM There are many bumpsn along life's highway. Like with a vehicle, a core challenge of a democratic nation is maintaing balance among the values (and interests) of those sharing the same "national" ride. So, to establish harmony, there is a constant need to realign and re-establish balance to rectify any strong "pull to the left" or, any strong "pull to the right" . Is America now in ballance? I suspect time will tell. Some values for the puzzle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Stim Date: 04 Sep 12 - 02:59 PM There is a theory that "Sawzaw" is not a real person, but that whenever the daily of postings to Mudcat fall below a "critical mass", an annoying thread is opened by "Sawzaw" to stimulate new discussion among the Mudcat regulars. Just a theory, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Bobert Date: 04 Sep 12 - 03:22 PM Nah, Sawz is a real person alright... He's let a few things slip over the years... Not a lot but enough... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Greg F. Date: 04 Sep 12 - 03:29 PM So the Civil War was a conflict between Socialism and Capitalism. Who knew? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 04 Sep 12 - 03:33 PM Excellent article. Thanks, Ed. #### There is much to be said for capitalism. The incentive to earn large amounts of money by inventing and selling new products and services can be a great innovator and a spur to creative endeavors. I would not dispense with it. But we've seen—at least TWICE within the past century how unregulated or ill-regulated capitalism has led to financial collapse and economic depression. Hard-charging capitalists chaff against any kind of regulation for the simple reason that it often prevents them from making huge profits at the expense of large numbers of people—and often the nation as a whole. One of the MAJOR long-term accomplishment of FDR in the 1930s was the formation of regulatory agencies such as the SEC—Securities and Exchange Commission—whose purpose is to oversee and regulate Wall Street and the banking system, preventing them from doing "deals" that feather their own nests, to the detriment of everyone else. They hate it, of course. And their boy, Ronald Reagan (who, incidentally, was a great admirer of Ayn Rand), castrated these agencies by appointing Wall Street brokers and bankers to the agencies, instead of those who did not themselves have a selfish, personal interest in overlooking, rather that overseeing and regulating, as they were supposed to do. Classic example of putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop! Another of FDR's innovations was the FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act—in which a small percentage of one's income tax is set aside, to be returned as an annuity when one reaches retirement age. Better known as "Social Security." This eliminated such national disgraces as "poor houses" and "poor farms" for the elderly and infirm. And later, Medicare was added to the program. The current crop of arch-conservatives insist on using the word "entitlements." as if it were a swear word, in relation to Social Security and Medicare. They would have you believe that "entitlements"—such as a retiree's monthly Social Security check—are some sort of gratuitous and undeserved largesse—at the tax payer's expense (neglecting to note that you were the tax payer!) Remember—you have paid into the system all during your working life, and when you reach retirement age, you are entitled to receive that check. The arch-conservatives scream that things like Social Security and MediCare—or any talk of a single-payer health care system (which most civilized countries have and which generally works quite well) are examples of America's descent into Socialism. As if "Socialism" is also a dirty word. Many countries that they point at as "Socialistic" have populations that are generally better off—and HAPPIER—than most Americans! What seems to work the best is a "mixed economy." Well-regulated capitalism, alongside the aspects of socialism that have already proven themselves to be generally beneficial. And we should stop trying to tell the rest of the world how to run their affairs until, at the very least, we get our own house in order. #### And that is the latest screed from Propaganda Minister Firth. I notice that pdq has not responded to my challenge. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Sep 12 - 04:24 PM "A reassertion of basic American values" The thread title is looking for this link , I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Sep 12 - 10:05 PM It is an indisputable fact that those who scream most loudly on both sides of the argument are ignorant of the nature of Capitalism as well as Socialism. The corporatists would do well to remember that they cannot exist without those who do the grunt work to produce wealth. BUT the working stiffs need to learn one basic fact also. Without Capital, there will be NO jobs for them to do. This is the major reason for the failure of every experiment in Communism. Capital and Labour must get together in enlightened self interest and iron out what is the optimum wage structure to allow all workers a good standard of living while permitting the companies sufficient gains to maintain re-investment in improvements and reasonable profits. But of course they won't! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 04 Sep 12 - 11:10 PM Capital and Labor are natural adversaries, not unlike buyer and seller. Each wants the most they can get from the other. The best protection for the buyer is competition, which is only possible under a free market system. The best protection, for Labor, is unions, but unions are at their lowest ebb since the 30s. And it's not just the bosses wha have depopularized orginized labor. The left has utterly failed to sell unions to most Americans. I know that unions are good for business and good for the balance that makes it work, but. in poll after poll,approval of unions was better than approval of Congress. But, not much better. Say what you will, it's not votes from the landed gentry that elected, Bush/Reagan/Bush. This is a conservative country and, if they have to choose between a socialist society and a capitalist society, they, consistantly veer to the right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Songwronger Date: 05 Sep 12 - 12:14 AM Not even the most rigid rightists would end public education, fire protection, postal service or road maintainence. Just about everyone benefits from Social Security and Medicare and any politician who ran against these benefits would lose in a rout. Yes, the rightists of the reactionary bent would end public education. They believe it was better in the old days when people were uneducated. Made people easier to control. In my state, cotton grading used to be taught in public schools, at the expense of other subjects. Had to teach kids how to grade cotton, and them that couldn't could just work in the fields. And Social Security and Medicare...Obama ran against them, in a roundabout way. He promised "austerity" constantly during his campaign, and he's delivered. He's placed an onerous tax on the poor with Obamacare, and the program will eventually destroy Medicare. But even more extreme than that are the outright fascist officials being elected at the state level (mostly through the upper middle Atlantic states). They want to end Medicaide and slash Medicare and Social Security. Paul Ryan wants to reduce Medicare with a bogus voucher system. So, for some unknown reason, Americans are buying into austerity and social suicide. I can't figure it. FDRism in moderation works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: michaelr Date: 05 Sep 12 - 01:17 AM "A reassertion of basic American values" That's what Michelle Obama delivered tonight. Dang, she gives even better speech than her husband. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 12 - 09:26 AM Absolutely on point, on key, on tone, a complete recap of the best of American values in Michelle's speech. Quelle femme! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Sep 12 - 05:21 PM "a warring tribe pitted against other warring tribes" Are ya listening Little Hawk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Sep 12 - 05:38 PM That was my impression of Michelle Obama's speech, too. Usually, I cringe when I hear the term "family values," because it implies repression of somebody that somebody else doesn't like. Michelle didn't use the term "family values," but she expressed the values I was brought up with - that if you work hard and do what you're supposed to do and tolerate other people and take good care of your children, you shouldn't be forced into bankruptcy or poverty or joblessness because of misfortune, bad luck, or the rapaciousness of the wealthy and powerful. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Sep 12 - 05:53 PM I agree with Don T 100% on this: "This is the major reason for the failure of every experiment in Communism. Capital and Labour must get together in enlightened self interest and iron out what is the optimum wage structure to allow all workers a good standard of living while permitting the companies sufficient gains to maintain re-investment in improvements and reasonable profits." ==================================================== However I do not agree with Don Firth on this: "When Sawzaw and pdq try to use "socialism" as a pejorative" I don't know about PDQ but I only quoted what people said with no comment. How is that using it as anything? You are trying to put a spin on it, not me. ==================================================== LH: "loathing or your misunderstanding of socialism" All I have said is give me a working example of a socialist country with some proof that it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Sep 12 - 06:08 PM ""All I have said is give me a working example of a socialist country with some proof that it works."" Most of the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark etc. etc.) Sawz, but they haven't destroyed capitalism in the process. The two are not mutually incompatible, and in fact are interdependent for best results. Socialism is not a communist monster. At its best it can be the conscience and moral compass which capitalism often lacks, mitigating the worst excesses of Corporatist greed. Balance is what is important, and the Scandinavian model of socialist capitalism has that. Workers feel valued and adequately rewarded and companies benefit from that in myriad ways, not least one of the world's lowest absenteeism rates. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Sep 12 - 06:48 PM Don T: I admire those countries But I don't think America is evolving in that direction. I believe it is evolving into a situation like Greece. I will pay taxes thru the ass if we get what is needed out of it. things for people. All the people Not bullshit like Ant Study to make some special interest voters happy at the expense of the other 99%. What is in the back of people that say no more taxes minds is "They will piss it away, not try to pay down the deficit and want more" The two party tribal politics system we have sucks. All they do is posture and spend money we don't have in order to get re elected. They divide and pit one group against another. It could not be any clearer. If I was able to change things I would study the Scandinavian countries and try to adopt their system. And I would study Greece and avoid those pitfalls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Sep 12 - 10:08 PM Sawzaw, what do you mean by "a socialist country"? Most countries are a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and that's what I think is the best approach. Even Cuba (a place I like very much), though it is officially presumed to be socialist, has a lot happening in it that looks like small scale capitalism to me...not corporatism...capitalism. I think Canada works somewhat better than the USA in certain respects, primarily because we have a bit more socialism in Canada...but there are other reasons too. But I certainly can't say that Canada works better than the USA in every respect. It's not a black and white situation. Both countries have certain strengths and weaknesses. Is Canada a "socialist" country? No. It's a country that combines socialism and capitalism. So does the USA, but to a lesser extent. Some countries that have a lot more socialism than the USA and work better, in my opinion, are the Scandinavian countries and some other western European countries and probably Japan too...but they have capitalism also, not just socialism. As I've said, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition with socialism or capitalism...it's usually a mix of the two. In fact, it almost has to be in the world as the world is now. The Chinese, for instance, though officially Communist, are about the most successful capitalists in the world at present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Bobert Date: 05 Sep 12 - 10:19 PM Asking Sawz what he means about anything of substance is like asking a box of creek rocks if it can do algebra... Good luck, LH... Maybe you are starting to see what Sawz is all about which is... ...mischief... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Sep 12 - 10:40 PM Didn't some left wing F**kwit with a gun attempt murder up in Quebec today because they lost an election? I have been to Quebec. They sure got pissed when I tried to pay for something with a $10 bill. I have been to Canada on vacation so I know all about the place. Ok why does a previously agrarian country like Cuba have to import most of their food? "About 30 percent of the country's land is used for crop cultivation.[ The inefficient agricultural industry in Cuba has led to the need to import large amounts of foods. Cuba now imports about 80% of the food it rations to the public." Note 'Rations' Why do the travel agencies advise you to take plenty of first aid stuff and basic medicines like aspirin with you to give to the local dispensaries because of the shortages? "Cubans warmly welcome donations however small. Everything you contribute is an overture of friendship and a progressive act against the U.S. blockade [the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US)] that deprives Cubans of basic items we in North America take for granted. We strongly advise against handing out donations or money to individuals you meet on the street. In areas frequented by tourists, professional scammers attempt to fleece foreign guests with scripted sob stories that win them cash or items they then sell on the black market, both resulting in hundreds of dollars every week. Working Cubans earn 15 to 20 dollars per month. When you give your donations or cash contributions to a handful of street hustlers, you deprive the vast majority of Cuban families and communities who could most benefit from your generosity. Giving to new island friends or helping out Cubans you know from past trips is a most wonderful overture. Go for it! How to make your heartfelt donations really count Organized donations to island NGOs facilitated by the Canadian network Not Just Tourists (NJT) are distributed equitably to Cubans most in need beyond the tourist centers. Get it? Beyond where the tourists are allowed to go. I am not calling you stupid LH but you seem unwilling to investigate and find the truth about Cuba. Did you fall for the fake cigars too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Sep 12 - 10:51 PM I prefer talking to anyone on a reasonable basis, Bobert, as long as they're willing to talk to me in the same fashion. You may have noticed (I hope) that my very critical comments about politics are usually directed toward governments and power structures and politicians and political parties and systems...rather than toward the other individuals here on this forum. When other individuals here feel that their particular political ox is being gored, though, they usually respond with various forms of personal attack and childish ridicule directed toward the poster. They demand that the poster stop stating the opinions that he is stating (or else...what?). They attempt to intimidate the poster into ceasing to comment on the subject. Sort of like they were still in grade school....bullying people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 05 Sep 12 - 11:07 PM I have never visited Scandinavia but I, like you, have heard about their welfare and health systems that cover everyone from cradle to grave. Not kibbutz coverage, but damn close. If I didn't hate cold weather, I'd probably love living there. I am aware that cuts in Medicare spending hurt everyone, except the wealthy. I know that Social Security checks ain't much to live on and I know that the wealthy have dispropotionate legislative influence. So, tell me why, Sweden and Norway aren't dealing with hordes of people trying to get in, legally or not. Canada has national health. How come the Canadians only have to deal with an ocean of immigrants, when American kids are dodging the draft. No, my friends, the USA,with flaws up the wazoo, is still the Mecca for the ambitious, the risk takers, the heretics, the dreamers. An open market doesn't guarentee success but offers a shot at success and, to an ambitious risk taker, that's pure manna. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Sep 12 - 11:35 PM musicmic... "If I didn't hate cold weather, I'd probably love living there." (Scandinavia) Yeah, me too! ;-D Although there's a lot of cold weather in Canada too...but I was born here, so that makes for a prior commitment to the place, despite the weather. If I'd been born in Denmark, Norway or Sweden, I'd probably still be living there too and quite happy to be there. "How come the Canadians only have to deal with an ocean of immigrants?" I think that is partially because our government has encouraged high immigration to this country for a long time. Why? Well, it provides a lot of people who are willing to work lousy jobs for low pay, and the business community really likes that. The Liberal Party has always liked it too, because the immigrants tend to vote Liberal. Furthermore, we have a lot of land here and not a very big population, so immigration kind of makes sense, doesn't it? (as long as it's kept within reasonable bounds). So many immigrants have come to Toronto that it doesn't even really seem like a Canadian city any longer (in the sense of the Canada that existed in my youth). Neighborhoods that were all white middle class when I was in my teens are now mostly Asian or African or Middle Eastern or some other ethnic group, and the white population that used to live in them has pretty much fled the city and moved north to the smaller towns and cities beyond Metro Toronto. "tell me why, Sweden and Norway aren't dealing with hordes of people trying to get in" Because of their geographical location, I would think, and perhaps because of their immigration policies. Holland, however, is having a social crisis due to a huge amount of immigration from places like Turkey, and it's creating real problems there. Most of western Europe offers a desirable destination for people from Africa and Asia and the Middle East who want to move up to a better lifestyle....but don't you think that Scandinavia is a bit far away to have to be worried about an influx of boat people? ;-D You ever try to take a small boat across the North Sea? The USA is one hell of a big place. It's not in the far North. It's famous all over the world due to Hollywood movies, wars, American music, political propaganda, etc, and it's right NEXT to Latin America....why wouldn't millions of poverty-stricken 3rd worlders dream of going there? And they dream of going to Canada too. But we're a lot harder to reach from where they are. You know, this is the land of opportunity too, from their point of view, and so is most of western Europe. The USA is not unique in that respect. The USA is far from the only place where a person can have "a shot at success". ***** Sawzaw...give me time. I do have another life to live besides this forum. ;-) I'll get back to you in a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:07 AM Okay...Sawzaw, I've been in Mexico, Trinidad, and Cuba. Of those three, Cuba has by far the most decent society, the least crime, the least abject poverty, and does by far the most to help its population, provide education, and provide medical care. It's downright amazing that the Cubans have survived at all as a society, considering that the USA has been trying to starve them out of existence ever since 1960, but they have...and that's a testament to both their courage and their tenacity. I've never been in a society I had more respect for than the Cubans, I've never seen a society with a stronger sense of community and social idealism. I've never seen a society with greater racial equality and greater harmony between blacks and whites. And I have absolutely no interest in cigars. ;-) Nor did most of the Cubans I met. But really rich Americans absolutely love them and will pay top dollar for them whether it's legal in the USA or not! I bet Bill Clinton and George Bush have both smoked Cubans with their best buddies. Yeah, I know there are shortages of all kinds of stuff in Cuba. They're under an American embargo! What did you expect? Don't you think that any country in Latin American would be short of a lot of stuff if the USA decided to shut off all trade with them? The USA has tried for over 50 years to starve out Cuba with the embargo. And has not succeeded. I didn't go to Cuba as a tourist. I didn't stay in hotels and "tourist areas". I stayed with ordinary Cubans in a church-based community (United Church) in the city of Cardenas...it's not a tourist destination. Yes, there are some scammers here and there on the streets (as there are anywhere in Latin America...and here too), and the best way to avoid being taken advantage of by them is: Use your own common sense. Be aware what your money is worth down there. Have some local Cuban friends to go around with you and keep you advised of what's reasonable and what is not. I had no problems with that. You can snipe at any country you want...say, "Oh, look at THIS problem they have!" They ALL have some problems. Cuba does too. But its people are way better off than they'd have been without that revolution they had back in the late 50s, and they're better off than a lot of other Latin Americans are. Yet...the USA does NOT embargo many other Latin American countries where the poor suffer way worse than they do in Cuba. Why? Well, those other countries didn't kick out the American gangsters and businessmen, that's why! They cooperated. It's simple, Sawzaw. You want to get along with the USA? Just cooperate with the USA's business and strategic interests. Kind of like dealing with Al Capone. Cooperate...or else. Everyone in the 3rd world knows that. By the way, you know who Castro's heroes were when he was a young man? Washington. Jefferson. Your founding fathers. He thought the USA would help Cuba free itself from rich gangsters and the American Mafia. Boy, was he ever wrong about that! The USA has betrayed the original American values it was founded upon a looooong time ago and has sold its soul for money and for empire. If Washington and Jefferson could see what the USA has become in the last 100 years, they'd call for another revolution. This time it would be against the banks and corporations rather than the British Crown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:11 AM Sawzaw: "I have been to Canada on vacation so I know all about the place." Yeah, I know what you mean Sawz. Some time back, I spent a whole day in Tijauna, so I know all there is to know about Central America in general and Mexico in particular. Isn't it wonderful how broadening and educational travel is? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:26 AM Canada is a lovely country and I love the Arrogant Worms but you are begging the issue. It is true that most modern immigrants, carded or shady, are ordinary workers, going where the jobs are. Personally ambitious types go where the opportunities lie, where risk is rewarded and bankruptcy laws give do-overs and Mulligans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:56 AM Musicmick: "So, tell me why, Sweden and Norway aren't dealing with hordes of people trying to get in, legally or not". A little over a year ago, Anders Breivik parked a car bomb in downtown Oslo which killed a large number of people, then went to a youth camp and shot and killed some 77 other people. It is believed that Breivik was a member of a "Norway for Norwegians" hate group that objects to the number of immigrants that are coming to the country. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: michaelr Date: 06 Sep 12 - 02:13 AM Thank you, Don, I was just going to make that point. European countries are comparatively small. Their open-door policies will have to be rethought when confronted with millions of third-world refugees from droughts, famine, floods and wars. This is only the beginning. None of these economies can sustain their current standards of living when a flood of impoverished immigrants drags it down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Sep 12 - 06:08 AM ""No, my friends, the USA,with flaws up the wazoo, is still the Mecca for the ambitious, the risk takers, the heretics, the dreamers. An open market doesn't guarentee success but offers a shot at success and, to an ambitious risk taker, that's pure manna."" In other words, a Mecca for the GREEDY, SELFISH MISERS of the western world. Flaws indeed! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 06 Sep 12 - 06:43 AM ""I have been to Quebec. They sure got pissed when I tried to pay for something with a $10 bill"". If one wants to experience a rude response, try to pay for goods at a USA store with the currancy of another country, (such as a Canadian $10) -:). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: bobad Date: 06 Sep 12 - 10:42 AM Hell, I had a panhandler in Times Square run after me to return the Canadian coins I had given him telling me that it was illeagal money - discriminating American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Sep 12 - 11:07 AM musicmic - Yeah, of course...people go where the jobs are...where they think they can improve their economic level. And you're quite right that Europe, Canada, the USA are all going to re-think their open door policies as war and ecological and economic problems cause a growing flood of refugees from the Third World. The situation does not bode well for the future. What did you mean by "bankruptcy laws give do-overs and Mulligans"? I'm not familiar with those terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Sep 12 - 11:34 AM From: Richard Bridge - PM Date: 03 Sep 12 - 06:24 PM Oh - and whence the idea that Churchill had any finer principles? Look at his history, and the resounding answer the British people gave him when the right to elections was restored to them. .,,.,.., It was the biggest mistake made in our 20C history, the worst and loudest clanger the British electorate ever dropped. So many were fed up with being bossed around by the Officer Class, whom they imagined Churchill to represent, that they elected what they supposed to be his opposite: a party nominally led by Clement Attlee (Winchester & Oxford), but effectively led, as by far the strongest personality, by Stafford Cripps (Winchester & UCL) -- an ultra-puritanical believer in mortification of the body for the good of soul. It was his insistence on the 'austerity' policy of rationing and self-denial, so necessary in the wartime that had just ended, for an inordinate length of time into the postwar period. that enabled the rest of Europe, both the countries that had been occupied by Germany, and, in particular, West Germany itself, to outstrip us in achievement and prosperity. As the saying went, "We won the War but lost the Peace". That would not have happened if Churchill had continued to govern inspirationally as he had from 1940 to 1945. By the time Britain came to its senses in 1951, after six years of Crippsian tyranny, it was too late: he was past it, and his successor Eden was not up to the job. Our nation is still reeling from the dire effect of those six years at such a vital time in what should have been our post-war regeneration but was sabotaged and destroyed by doctrinaire public-school champagne socialists. That is the truth of the matter, Richard ~~ and you know it. And, so that this post shall not be denounced as too much of a drift from the ostensible topic of this thread, let me warn explicitly ~~ American friends, learn from our mistakes, and do not be misled by the siren calls of a false and misleading puritanical 'egalitarianism'. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: pdq Date: 06 Sep 12 - 11:44 AM "Europe, Canada, the USA are all going to re-think their open door policies as war and ecological and economic problems cause a growing flood of refugees from the Third World..." ~ LH Fact is, the World population was just 3.5 billion in 1968. Last year it topped 7 billion. Yes, it has DOUBLED since 1968. The people of the US were responsible folks and reached zero population growth in 1972. All growth since then is from immigration, much of that illegal. We are destroying our precious farm land by overproduction of food to feed hungry mouths and to stop food riots and violence in other countries. We are building houses on huge amounts of the finest farm land in California to house the illegal aliens. The US is in trouble. We will not even be able to feed the people who live here in just a few years, much less the huge number we feed throughout the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Sep 12 - 11:47 AM Sorry ~~ correction or error: Attlee's public school was Haileybury, not Winchester. Out of interest, Cripps was in full the Honourable Sir Stafford Cripps, (son of Lord Parham). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:01 PM The values argument is specious. Romney is part of the crooked Wall Street assemblage that is undermining America's claim on democracy. The Tea Party is still a corporate shill financed by Koch Brothers and is a trumped up reaction to corporate greed. FDR embodied much of what is accountable for the good side of America which was destroyed by Reagan. The nurturing view of government that takes care and protects its citizen is the true emerging of American values, not the Republican fat-cat extremism so callously represented at the Republican Convention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:19 PM ""Didn't some left wing F**kwit with a gun attempt murder up in Quebec today because they lost an election?"" Not sure what the point is in that comment? But, no country has a monopoly on disturbed crackpots and I suspect all have a few. The interesting part is that those commenting inside and outside Quebec agreed that this case was an isolated act by a deranged individual, and has no more meaning beyond that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Sep 12 - 12:20 PM "We are building houses on huge amounts of the finest farm land in California" The same thing is happening in Canada, pdq. Not in connection with illegal immigrants, but rather because of developers' purchasing power and the greater financial pressures on privately owned farms. Outside almost every urban centre and town in Ontario there is plenty of beautiful farmland...and it's the first place developers go to buy land for new subdivisions on the edge of the city. Farmers are having a harder and harder time making a living, and their children often don't want to continue running the family farm. What happens is that a developer offers a huge amount of money to purchase that land, and a farmer who is facing financial hardship or retirement eventually gets an offer he feels he can't refuse. Farmland is ideal land for putting in a housing development. It's flat, open, and presents no obstacles to construction. So we lose huge swaths of productive farmland year after year as rows of houses that all look alike replace land that was used to grow food. The only thing that could possibly stop this from happening is a dramatic reduction in population...or...government legislation to protect existing farmland and not allow it to be used for purposes other than farming. The government could pass such legislation, but I doubt they will, because MONEY talks! And the developers have that money. And the politicians are powerfully influenced by that money. In my town, a developer has become the latest mayor. Guess what he'll be in favor of? ;-) More development, and that means more loss of farmland. A woman I know ran for council in another town near here, and she was considered an "enemy" by the developers, so they pulled all kinds of dirty tricks to get her to lose or drop out of the election, including veiled threats of physical violence if she didn't. Capitalism is the engine driving this process. That doesn't mean capitalism is bad...but if it's unrestricted by some sort of legislation to protect our farmland, we're going to just keep losing our farms, and losing our means of locally producing our own food. So where is it going to come from? And is that wise in a world of diminishing resources. We all know the answer to that. One reason that the rugged American frontier ethos worked so well back in the late 1700s and the 1800s was that there was a seemingly unlimited amount of virgin land and untapped resources available in North America to be exploited by the expanding white civilization at the time. That is not the case anymore. The bathtub is now full, the water is dirty, and it's beginning to overflow, and it has no place to go. We have to think in different terms now. The old philosophy of permanent growth just doesn't make sense any longer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: kendall Date: 06 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM When asked which was more important, labor or capital, Abraham Lincoln said, "Capital is the result of, and could not exist without labor. Therefore, labor is more important." Good enough for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 12 - 02:17 PM "Capitalism is the logical extention of individualism. That is essentially the polar opposite of the truth. It is far truer to say that Capitalism involves the sytematic elimination of individual autonomy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 06 Sep 12 - 02:52 PM Aside: Up-thread, pdq accused me in most objectionable terms of misquoting and misrepresenting what he and others have said—including Ayn Rand, when I quoted her writing directly. I challenged him to show me WHERE I misquoted him (which posts of his and mine). He has not yet responded to that challenge. I think that settles that! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Greg F. Date: 06 Sep 12 - 02:55 PM Close, Kendall, but no cigar. Excerpt follows: Abraham Lincoln First message To Congress (December 3, 1861) Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html#ixzz25iW0RySv Also interesting to compare with his thoughts one year prior: By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it...This is the "mud-sill" theory. But another class of reasoners hold ...that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Greg F. Date: 06 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM OOOPS! Cut off the last part of #2: I have so far stated the opposite theories of "Mud-Sill" and "Free Labor" without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this I ought not to declare any. Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society September 30, 1859 http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: kendall Date: 06 Sep 12 - 03:33 PM I know that whole quote, but was too lazy to post all of it. Brevity is the soul of wit you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 Sep 12 - 05:27 PM Just to for the sake of accuracy, what Lincoln actually said in 1859 was: "But another class of reasoners hold the opinion...that labor is the fruit of capital, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior - greatly the superior - of capital." Two years later he said, "While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance...with everybody else." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: gnu Date: 06 Sep 12 - 05:37 PM "that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor." That arguement has teeth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Greg F. Date: 06 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM Sorry Lighter- maybe Joe Lincoln said that, but Abe said "capital is the fruit of labor" as I p[osted, and as stated in any verified edition of Lincoln's speaches, and as I bosted, below. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 06 Sep 12 - 07:42 PM You're obviously right about that part. My apologies. The rest is accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 07 Sep 12 - 08:05 AM What Ayn Rand and the objectivists fail to acknowledge is that people are "communitists." Not "communists," but "communitists." That is to say that "it takes a village" for us to survive. No individual by his or herself is capable of living in the way that we see "living" without help from others. For that reason, we specialize in our contributions to the community effort to survive. We need farmers. We need blacksmiths. We need teachers. We need doctors. We need police to enforce the agreed upon rules. And of course, we need story-tellers, artists, and musicians without whom life would be so incredibly boring that our king-sized crania would kill themselves with the help of our opposable thumbs. In order to facilitate a more effective and efficient effort, we formed governments to coordinate many of those efforts so that there was not so much competing and ineffective work being done. And whenever there is more than one person in a survivable area, there are conflicts. And those governing bodies had to mediate those conflicts so that everyone did not kill each other. This is sociology and anthropology 101. Without such coordination of effort and agreement on a structure, we would have chaos. And I don't think that is what anyone wants. Or do they? Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Sep 12 - 08:38 AM ""But another class of reasoners hold ...that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor."" This may have been true in Lincoln's time, though even then large cities with dense populations were changing the balance. Today, labour cannot exist without capital, since there is no longer the potential for universal self sufficiency. The population has grown too large for that. The best we can have is a balance of capital and labour, working together, but that will only happen when the dim witted on both sides get wise to the fact that there is no longer an "US and THEM". We're all in the same boat and rowing together is the only way to get anywhere. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 07 Sep 12 - 10:59 AM Yup, humans, like apes, are creatures with a strong sense of community. That's where the idea of "communism" came from...community on a national scale. And that's where the idea of nations came from too...the forming of a larger community. The impulse toward communism was a positive one it its early stages. It was an attempt to create a greater equality among the rich and the poor...not to make everyone totally equal, but to ensure that no one was desperately poor, powerless, and basically enslaved alongside a few who were incredibly rich. That was the intent to establish social justice, and it was a laudable intent. What happened, though, in the case of Russia and China, was that the people who rose to the top of the new Communist orders became authoritarian extremists who turned to institutionalized violence and oppression. They put together a police state. By doin' so, they actually betrayed the principles they was pretendin' to stand up for. It was a failure...not of the theory, but of the application of the theory. In the capitalist world we are comin' around now to face something similar these days: the failure not of the theory, but of the application of the theory. The lesson to draw from this is that if you put corrupt and self-seeking men...or extreme fanatics...at the top of any system, that system will eventually become corrupted from the top right to the bottom, and it will fail. - Chongo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ebbie Date: 07 Sep 12 - 11:18 AM OOK! OOK! I've gotten much smarter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 07 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM Put another way, what if everyone made their money the way Rmoney "made" his? Who would do actual *work*? Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 07 Sep 12 - 12:11 PM > This is sociology and anthropology 101. Unfortunately, not even all students take those courses, and of those who do, some flunk and many more aren't paying much attention. Others recall most vividly that sociology was more or less founded by Marx and Engels. Need I say more? And Rick Santorum doesn't think young people should go to a university anyway because the liberal professors will mess up their minds. It takes more than a "village" nowadays. It takes a college town with at least an arts program, a semi-decent library, and maybe a museum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 07 Sep 12 - 12:29 PM > even then large cities with dense populations were changing the balance. Lincoln declined to endorse the idea that labor and capital were eternally at odds or always separable. But his larger point in 1859 was that in a strongly agrarian America, with many non-agricultural small businesses, "a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families - wives, sons, and daughters - work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other." Of course, that was then. Things are far more complicated today, even if some people don't want to accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 07 Sep 12 - 12:53 PM Holy shit! I hit 100 and diden even no it!!! Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 07 Sep 12 - 01:15 PM Did ya feel the Earth move? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: DMcG Date: 07 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM I have been to Quebec. They sure got pissed when I tried to pay for something with a $10 bill. I have been to Canada on vacation so I know all about the place. I've seen Americans trying to pay for bus tickets in US$ in Sweden, and getting very upset when they were refused. Assuming everyone wants your currency rather than their own - and are willing to put up with all the hassles and fees for converting the currency to theirs - shows an impressive lack of awareness. Fortunately, very few Americans I have met in Europe are quite that self-centred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Donuel Date: 07 Sep 12 - 04:41 PM There is nothing more basic than the value of truth. Anyone or any collective that devalues truth is 180 degress off course from goodness. But truth poses a challenge. First you must know the truth about yourself. Most people do not pass that exam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: bobad Date: 07 Sep 12 - 05:35 PM Actual socialist Bernie Sanders: No, Obama is not a socialist |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Sep 12 - 11:00 PM Where Americans got led astray, is that they confused 'the right to pursue happiness', with the 'right to pursue material gain'! Being exploited picks up from there......... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don Firth Date: 07 Sep 12 - 11:17 PM But not ALL Americans. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Sep 12 - 12:31 AM Of course....but enough!...just like the subversion of other values, and replaced with permissiveness and other forms of 'politically correct' idiocy! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 08 Sep 12 - 11:52 AM Regardless of the various potential reasons for it, Cuba seems to have a good environmental record. Where does restoring/retaining concern/respect for the environment / vs economic development fit in "reasserting basic American values? Earlier reference was made to Cuba. Could the environmental protection provide a groundwork for immproving relations? Cuba-USA Environment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 12 - 12:51 PM Cuba has a good record in quite a number of areas, although not being perfect. Needless to say, no country is perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: pdq Date: 08 Sep 12 - 01:10 PM Fact is, pollution and resource depletion are products of a thriving economy. Prosperity is a very wasteful process. Cuba's economy has changed little in the last 50 years. They still drive old cars (if they have not rusted into oblivion) like the 1957 Chevy. The Left wants us to hunker down and stop building houses and cars the way we did during the boom times. Yep, end coal mining completely, have every body move into tiny condos in the cities and use public transportation. Also end gun manufacture and the production of anything they don't like. Most of us don't want to live in their boring pathetic world, thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Greg F. Date: 08 Sep 12 - 01:35 PM Which boring, pathetic world are you referring to? Cuba? whose health care system is better than that in the U.S. & no-one goes to bed hungry? Or the U.S., where the same-old-same-old environmental rape, corporatism, and the rich screwing over the middle class & poor folk is indeed pathetic and boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 08 Sep 12 - 02:36 PM ""Fact is, pollution and resource depletion are products of a thriving economy."" I guess the BP oil spill was a good economic sign and a good thing, with that "wonky" way of thinking. I have been in Cuba many times, though devoid of Glitz, it surely is not "a boring pathetic place" to me. It's refreshing to walk any of the urban street without worrying about being mugged (unlike not-so-far-away Cubo-Latino Miami, which I have also visited) - I am always amazed by the friendly citizens of Cuba. BTW, I would like to own one of those pre 1959 cars - that are still being taken driven after decades of daily use - and they aren't even Toyotas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Sep 12 - 03:24 PM The least boring times I've ever had have been in Cuba. I never experienced so much good fellowship and good attitude anywhere else on Earth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Sep 12 - 03:33 PM The idea that basic human values have nationalities is pretty daft, when you think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Sep 12 - 07:03 AM ""The idea that basic human values have nationalities is pretty daft, when you think about it."" Not so surprising, though, in a country in which a Corporation is legally a "person". Now THAT is daft on a monumental scale. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Sep 12 - 07:07 AM What I would like to know is this. When a corporation commits a criminal offence, how do you put it in jail? After all it's a person and should receive the same punishment as would any man on your local streets. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM In a discussion of American values, it's necessary to define whose American's values we are talking about. Ayn Rand is much too much a ideologue and philosophical dictator to ever be represented as real American values. What are these values? 1. Separation of church and state 2. A nurturing government that works for most of the people 3. A freedom from corporate tyranny 4. A respect for the "law of the commons" 5. An adherence to the general idea of the American Constitution which has been inordinately misconstrued by gun-happy irresponsible Republicans and some Democrats as well. 6. A knowledge that no one is an island and owes a certain dependency to others for their well-being and livelihood. 7. A responsive government to the will of the people it governs. 8. An abhorrence to oligarchs, dictators and inflexible ideologues who are revealed by their selfishness. No kings or queens or royalty. 9. FDR in many of his policies (certainly not all) reflected his administrative decisions based on real American values. Not Romney or Ryan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 09 Sep 12 - 11:09 AM A good list in theory, Stringsinger, for any nation. But, from my observations, would find it surprising if the majority of "Americans" would actually find "common value" from many of the items in this list, above others that may arise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM Here's another thing that's notable about a coporation: it is potentially immortal...unless it gets devoured by an even bigger corporation, in which case it lives on anyway as part of that corporate entity. You can't say that about the people who work for it, however. They're expendable. They get sick and die. They come and go. The corporation goes on regardless, because it's an idea. In this case it's an idea based on one thing only...getting MORE. That means making a larger and larger profit each year by grabbing a larger and larger market share, reducing its staff, devouring resources, and destroying the competition. Sounds kind of like a predatory animal to me, but one with an unlimited lifespan. It is these predatory corporate animals that have gone all over the world with the assistance of the IMF and the World Bank and the US military, toppled democratic governments that stood in their way, fought wars for profit, and disappeared thousands of innocent people in Latin America and elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 09 Sep 12 - 04:43 PM A definition of "person" under U.S. law: "1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages." "Punitive damages" are additional damages that may be imposed over and above compensation for actual losses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 09 Sep 12 - 05:24 PM The point of defining corporations, counties, etc., as "persons" under the law is so that the same legal system will apply to them as applies to individuals. Why? So they can be sued and punished - and taxed - under due process. Not even Mitt Romney thinks a corporation is a "person" in the everyday sense of the word. Saying he does is just another debating trick supposedly familiar to every college freshman: the quote ripped from context and spun with unjustified new meaning. Watch the clip and draw your own conclusions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 12 - 07:09 PM I was talking about corporations themselves, not about Mitt Romney. Somebody else may have been talking about Mitt Romney. What concerns me about corporations is their power to affect things and their total lack of any human moral sense, as the one purpose of their existence is simply to enlarge themselves. That's also the purpose of a cancerous growth. And a conquering empire. They are all predatory in nature. They all end up eventually destroying the host, thus destroying themselves too. And the same is true of a Ponzi scheme. What happens with these aggressive human-made power structures, though, (the cancerous growth excepted) is that while they are still doing well and in command of the situation, the few men who control them from the top end become fabulously rich. Therein lies the temptation that produces the problem. We've got a conquering empire right now that wants to control the entire world, and we live inside it. My country, Canada, is just a subsidiary branch plant of that empire...a virtual colony, in fact, but still with its own culture somewhat intact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Sep 12 - 11:13 AM "" However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages.""" All very tidy, and an example of just how far from personhood corporations are. Malice is not simply a matter of human emotions. A company which knows of a danger to human life existing in either its machinery or policies and ignores that danger by reason of a "cost benefit analysis", is guilty of legal malice, since it wantonly accepts that its actions will most likely kill, but the compensation will be less than the cost of removing the danger. If punitive damages cannot be levied, just what will prevent a "cost benefit" culture spreading from the airline companies to the whole manufacturing base and beyond. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 10 Sep 12 - 11:35 AM > what will prevent a "cost benefit" culture spreading from the airline companies to the whole manufacturing base and beyond? Nothing. It happened long ago. Remember, though, that "punitive damages" are *additional* damages over and above compensation for actual injury. Fear of being hit with those ordinary damages keeps most corporations in line. But even if corporations could be liable for punitive damages, the fact that they can sue and be sued in a civil court is what makes them "persons" in this very specific legal sense that has nothing to do with physical humanity. (Since I'm not a lawyer I can't tell you whether a corporation's officers can be held personally liable for punitive damages if a plaintiff can show malice on their part as individuals.) Like I said, not even Mitt Romney (or Michelle Bachmann) thinks a corporation is a human being. *Is* a corporation a person? In terms of a precise correspondence, obviously no. In terms of a different, strictly limited, legal-procedural definition of "person," yes. The two are not the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 10 Sep 12 - 01:23 PM It's all in what you define as a 'value', as opposed to a promotion of a bad sale, and if you buy it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 10 Sep 12 - 06:40 PM Should corporations and counties be allowed to legally marry, regardless of their orientation in the world? There is no question of their desire to have sex, as they can screw you "with or without passion" anywhere and on any day or night. Just wondering if anyone else had this odd thought?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: John P Date: 11 Sep 12 - 09:54 AM Hmmm, a Constitutional amendment banning corporate mergers . . . I like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 12 - 12:35 PM If corporations are "persons" in the USA does this mean they have the right to bear arms? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 11 Sep 12 - 01:50 PM "Family values" are Republican delegates visiting strip clubs in Tampa during the Convention. They are such hypocrites! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:43 PM Hey, c'mon! Family values are something politicians and convention delegates demand of others, not of themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Sep 12 - 10:38 PM "Family values" are ignored by John Edwards and Jesse Jackson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:19 PM "God bless America? Naw, naw, naw -- God DAMN America" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Sep 12 - 10:49 PM "Family values" are Democrat delegates *****SCREAMING****** "kill Mitt Romney at the DNC". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Sep 12 - 01:11 AM I thought family values was McCain and the Lincoln Savings and loan scandals, then skates... while Bill Clinton was getting blow-jobs from Monica-Babes!..and Hillary was getting insider trading favors from people associated with McCain's criminal enterprise!! "Music goes 'round and 'round, Oh Oh Oh oh...oh oh, And it comes out here!" GfS P.S. Best comment about 'values' posted!: From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 10 Sep 12 - 01:23 PM It's all in what you define as a 'value', as opposed to a promotion of a bad sale, and if you buy it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Donuel Date: 13 Sep 12 - 10:40 AM The first and formost American value that effects our lives minute by minute and generation to generation is valuing truth. Anyone who devalues truth is either a criminal or con man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 12 - 11:17 AM What's particularly "American" about "valuing truth"? It's an admirable human value, not always present in humans everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 12 - 12:01 PM Presumably "values" here means "typical qualities which are good" as opposed to "typical qualities which are bad". So the logical thing to do would be emake a list of qualities which characterise "America". And then sort them out into those which are good and those which are bad. Of course the difficulty of getting agreement on what was "typical" would be equalled by the difficulty of sorting out what is to be seen as good and bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Sep 12 - 12:10 PM "Hmmm, a Constitutional amendment banning corporate mergers . . . I like it. " John, you may be on to something there. Since the DOMA restricts marriage to one man and one woman and corporations are neither.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 13 Sep 12 - 12:37 PM McGrath, nobody said they were *exclusively* American values. Some would argue that a particular constellation of values is especially American, but that's another mor or less pointless discussion. Also, let's distinguish between cultural ideals and other values that pervasive if widely condemned. "Racial equality" exemplifies the first and "racism" the second. Note to cynics: it isn't massive hypocrisy, it's reality lagging behind ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 13 Sep 12 - 12:47 PM George Lakoff, the linguistics professor at Berkeley says there are two distinct political "values". One is authoritarian requiring punitive punishment and lockstep to authority. The other is nurturing, caring, giving and helping others. Those caught between the two extremes are called "biconceptuals" ie: A person might be authoritarian in his/her dealings on a personal level but nurturing on a political or ideological level. All politics is moral. There are no issue-oriented (wonkish) facts that are not part of the two worlds. This is why the two (values) worlds can't communicate with each other. How the authoritarian people define "values" is totally different from the nurturing people. This all stems from upbringing by ie: an authoritarian strict father or mother figure or a nurturing father or mother figure. I think that Lakoff has something there. Bush and Romney: Authoritarian values. Obama: To some degree nurturing but a bi-conceptual in his foreign policies which are more authoritarian. Check out Lakoff and your understanding of "values" is enhanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Sep 12 - 12:49 PM "to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue" No one in America says this. Is it "an American value" to run against a fictional opponent that you make up out of whole cloth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM Stringsinger with all due respect to George Lakoff, linguistics professor, that is a steaming pile of horse dung. My Political value is Peace Order and Good Government, to study each problem and goal and prescribing the most efficient means of getting there. I do not believe in nurturing at all but neither do I believe in torturing. Study it as scientifically as possible and do what works. To a large degree that is the approach of the US Democratic party and that of most major parties in prosperous democracies worldwide. Unfortunately for the world the GOP isn't really for anything but tax cuts and conning low information voters into more tax cuts. They are all about drowning government in the bathtub rather than it doing the good it was designed to do. How much better off would we be if we had two parties competing to do the most for our whole society? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Sep 12 - 01:56 PM Donuel: "The first and formost American value that effects our lives minute by minute and generation to generation is valuing truth. Anyone who devalues truth is either a criminal or con man."..!!!!!!!! Amen!! Hear hear!! ON the money!..and aboso-fuckin'-lutely! I guess that leaves politicians out in the cold! GfS P.S. Makes you wonder about the dupes who believe the con men/politicians! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Ed T Date: 13 Sep 12 - 05:46 PM What do families value in the usa? How about, to start: TV, Internet, cellphones and Ipods Take out food SUVs (or cars) Name brand duds Sports Shopping malls and outlets Music and movie downloads High Cal foods and fad diets |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Sep 12 - 01:10 PM "Stringsinger with all due respect to George Lakoff, linguistics professor, that is a steaming pile of horse dung." Spoken like a true authoritarian. The US could do with a number of political parties or at least Instant Runoff Voting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:25 PM Paul Ryan today: "Obama wants an America where everything is free - but us." Catchy. Insane, but catchy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Bobert Date: 14 Sep 12 - 05:29 PM Paul Ryan is delusional... But then again, so are his followers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Sep 12 - 06:43 PM Paul Ryan is running against a cartoon that does not exist and calling it "Obama." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:19 PM Basic American values are not what divides us but what unites us. That politicians, on both sides of the aisle, use whatever they can to win elections and their rabid followers (those who would sooner die than vote for a member of the "enemy" party) cheer wildly when the sacred "values" word is invoked. But, the true American creed is based on those principles that our country was founded on and that remain at the core of our pride. They include pluralism (America remains the only major country that lacks an ethnic identity. Populated, as it was, by settlers from diverse roots, we managed to build a society in a muticultural populace. It was, and is, quote a feat), opportunity (In a world that maintained social structure by geneology, America offered a shot at upward mobility and that most treasured treasure, land ownership. It is why so many thousands came to our shores, wanting to be a part of what we had) and tolerance (America was a haven for political and religious disidents. Our Constitution specifucally forbade the establishment of a state religion and, in its first amandment, it guarenteed freedom of speech, press and assembly) The America haters focus on the imperfections and failed attempts to live up to our hopes but they are missing the point, of course. We are doing our best to be what we pray we can be and, if we fall short (as we must), we do not throw in the towel. Above the braying of the self-rightious right and the jeering of the holier-than-thou left, America remains, as it was, a glorious work in perpetual progress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: gnu Date: 14 Sep 12 - 07:29 PM musicmick... (unless I misread your intention) well said except for that "as we must" part. The WHOLE world is awaiting for you Yanks NOT to fall short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:49 AM We ain't missin' on purpose, gnu. Americans are no better or worse than everyone else. If we think our home is the cat's meow, so does everyone everyhere. We are brash and boastful and, occasionally boorish but we are generous and caring. When tragedy strikes, anywhere in the world, we offer support and aid through our government and through private appeals. Our country waas the first to change governments peacefully and we have been doing so since the election of Thomas Jefferson. We even brought down a president through investigative reporting. We are, flaws and all, a country of laws, in spite of the constant struggle with the wise guys who want to skirt those laws. And, may I add, when individuals or states insult us and our beliefs, we don't storm their embassies and kill their diplomats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:38 PM No, we send drones in to kill Muslim families. I share with you the optimism that the laws will represent democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 15 Sep 12 - 12:56 PM musicmick, I gotta correct you on somethin' here. The USA was definitely not the first country to change governments peacefully (through elections). Far from it. There were plenty of other places that changed governments peacefully long before the USA even existed. England had a parliamentary system, for instance, and held multi-party elections regularly, and changed governments peacefully. Yes, they still had a king (or queen) for traditional reasons and ceremonial reasons...a constitutional monarch, but the king didn't control the government and pass legislation...parliament did. The king served as a constitutional monarch and a ceremonial head of state, but parliament could overrule the king. The kind could do nothing without parliament agreein' to it. The British were under the impression they already had a democracy before the American Revolution ever happened, and they were right about that. They did. And they had a modern Bill of Rights and free speech and all that stuff. What the colonists were bugged about was that they were bein' taxed and ruled from across the Atlantic, without proper representation IN the English parliament, but don't think the English didn't already have a system at home that changed governments peacefully, cos they did. Furthermore, the Dutch had a multi-party Republic long before the American Revolution, and they also changed governments peacefully through regularly scheduled elections. Look it up under "the United Provinces". It was a very similar arrangement to the Thirteen States that came much later in the USA...only in Holland they had 7 provinces. And there were other republics here and there in Europe prior to the birth of the USA. Some of the Mediterranean states had republics and parliamentary elections. And there was the Roman Republic which had free elections back in the earlier Roman times before the Roman Emperors took over. And the Greek democracy in Athens. It is a popular myth that the USA was the first republic, and the first place with democratic elections. It was not. It likes to think it was...just like the Soviets used to like to think that they came up with everything first. It's similar mythology in both cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 12 - 03:42 PM If "the Founding Fathers" are the measure, wouldn't slavery be a basic American value? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 15 Sep 12 - 04:50 PM Yes and no. Some opposed it, but they compromised to keep the country together. A temporary fix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 12 - 05:21 PM Fallible politiians muddling along - and not to be over-reverenced as infallible guides to what is right and what is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 16 Sep 12 - 09:19 AM Who knows what their opinions would be about specific current issues if they'd lived through the intervening 200-plus years? Undoubtedly varied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:09 AM Libs believe "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" is an American value. I read somewhere that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Stringsinger Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:12 AM The reassertion of basic American values has not been defined to the agreement of everyone here. Some ideas by Republicans are that there was a "golden age" of Americanism which is basically mythical. This "reassertion" is being dispensed by white men, rather portly, who rely on a false nostalgia, a racial utopia, (white of course) probably reinforced by early TV shows, "Father Know Best", "Leave it to Beaver" and Reagan's ridiculous "morning in America" (read mourning), and a misreading of the Civil War by "State's Rights" advocates as well as a religious fervor extolling Christianity. A thread of this kind seems to imply these reassertions or it might mean the American values of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, the Abolitionist movement, William Lloyd Garrison, the rise of the labor movement from Joe Hill, the IWW, the Knights of Labor through to the automobile strike in Dearborn, Michigan, or the Sufferagette Movement for women voting, Lincoln's abolition of slavery (however "compromised") and the repudiation of torture by George Washington, and the governmental policies of FDR despite the incarceration of Japanese during WWII, the teachings and activism of Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, John Brown, MLK, Frederic Douglas, Malcolm X, and many others. Which reassertion are we talking about here? Basic American values are essentially open ended involving "Manifest Destiny", world wars, incursions into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen using military might. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Bobert Date: 16 Sep 12 - 11:26 AM "Re-essertion" itself is a *bogus term* in that the implication is that implies that American values disappeared... They haven't... They have evolved... Sometimes for the good, i.e. the civil rights movement and sometimes for the bad, i.e. the not-so-Civil War... Unfortunately, most of the folks calling for re-assertion are, as Strings has pointed out, angry white males... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:19 PM "angry white males" Who could that be? "I hate it that the Supreme Courth has got 5 memebers with their heads up Rush Limbaugh's ass" "I hate it that a Tea Party gun-nut can show up at a ralley where the president is with an AK-47 strapped to his leg" "they were filled with contempt (hate) of Obama" "I saw some very hatefull signs" "promoting hatefilled demonstartions" "promoting hate is against the law" "The KKK epitomized the kinda hate that we witnessed this past week." "They just hate the governemnt"' "they really just flat out hate the governemnt" "Yeah, they hate the governemnt " "But they sho nuff hate the governemnt" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:28 PM Wow Sawzaw, you are talking about exactly the same people that Bobert is. unless you think that calm Asian females were attending Obama rallies with AK 47's. What is your favorite Woody Guthrie song? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:38 PM Libs believe "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" is an American value. I read somewhere that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Both mean pretty well the same - "belong" obviously means in the sense in which we belong to a family, rather than in which we might belong to an owner. Use your head to understand the English language... Too much to ask, I suspect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:13 AM McG That would be people of the government, by the government, for the government. Your interpretation would mean that people exist for the government not the government exists for the people. Riding In My Car Words and Music by Woody Guthrie Brrrm brm brm brm brm brm brm, brrrm b' brrrm, Brrrm brm brm brm brm brm brrrm b' brrrm, Brrrm brm brm brm brm brm brrrm b' brrrm. Brrrm brm brm brm brm brm brrrm. Take me riding in the car, car; Take me riding in the car, car; Take you riding in the car, car; I'll take you riding in my car. Click clack, open up the door, girls; Click clack, open up the door, boys; Front door, back door, clickety clack, Take you riding in my car. Climb, climb, rattle on the front seat; Spree I spraddle on the backseat; Turn my key, step on my starter, Take you riding in my car. Engine it goes boom, boom; Engine it goes boom, boom; Front seat, backseat, boys and girls, Take you riding in my car. Trees and the houses walk along; Trees and the houses walk along; Truck and a car and a garbage can, Take you riding in my car. Ships and the little boats chug along; Ships and the little boats chug along; Boom buhbuh boom boom boom buh boom, Take you riding in my car. I'm a gonna send you home again; I'm a gonna send you home again; Boom, boom, buhbuh boom, rolling home, Take you riding in my car. I'm a gonna let You blow the horn; I'm a gonna let you blow the horn; A oorah, a oorah, a oogah, oogah, I'll take you riding in my car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A reassertion of basic American values From: musicmick Date: 17 Sep 12 - 01:53 PM It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that some folks' minds are made up and ain;t nothing gonna change them. To them, evil is evil and their eemy is as evil as can be. Grey does not appear on their spectrums. Oh, it's fun to tickle them in their bias but the exercise is as fruitless as a pear tree in a petrified forest. Election years, with their hype and exagurations, are like breeding grounds for closed minds. It would be more productive to have this "conversation" after November when some of them will be licking their wounds and some chortling their nya-nyas. In the mean time, lets get back to the music. |
