(April 17, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 17, 2017 at 9:50 am)Brian37 Wrote: NO SORRY, you have bought a bullshit cold war definition of "secularism" sold by the asshole bigoted right wing. The founders wanted a secular government. "Secular" DOES NOT mean a call to ban religion. "Secular" means NEUTRAL, neither for or against. NEUTRAL as in not playing favorites by setting up a social pecking order.

Stop projecting your fake superiority bullshit on us. If the founders intended for Christianity to be the only religion with the first dibs, then blame the founders because in the Constitution you only see "freedom of religion" and in the oath of office you see "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". That means Jews and Muslims and Hindus and yes, even atheists in America ARE EQUAL TO YOU under the law. You do not hold more rights than anyone else. 

The founders were a variety of beliefs, mostly deist. Jefferson and Paine especially railed against pulpit politics. But all of them agreed that it was not their job to prop up any religion, just their idea that you had the right to do it. I am under no obligation to swear an oath to Jesus anymore than you are obligated to swear an oath to Allah. If you want to live under a government controlled by religion and favors one religion over another, move to Saudi Arabia. 

You don't have the right, for example to open a city council meeting with a Catholic prayer then deny the opportunity for a Mormon to do it, or a Buddhist to do it or a Jew to do it. You either share the venue, or agree to keep it neutral and leave it at the door. You are not entitled to a social pecking order based on your religion. 

"Secular" does not mean dictator. "Secular" means neutrality through common law. The founders NEVER set up a religious pecking order. Nowhere in the Constitution do you find the words "Jesus, Christianity or bible'.

Quite the contrary:

Quote:Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

I am well aware of that treaty and article 11, not sure what you mean by "Quite the contrary". Combine that with the First Amendment and the Oath of Office "no religious test" that article supports my argument that "secular" does not mean a call to ban religion. "no religious pretext arising from religious opinions shall every produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries". 

It isn't banning anything, it is merely saying that religion cannot override common interests, thus the use of the words "tranquility" and "harmony".  That seems consistent with "Freedom of religion". "Secular" means neutrality, neither for or against, neutral. 

"The United States of America, is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is only saying the official government stance is that our laws are not bible based. It does remain that the individual rights of the citizen are in tact, including the ability to run for public office regardless of religion, but cannot be included or excluded based on a religious litmus test, thus "No religious test". 

It is perfectly legal for example for a politician to swear on a bible, but what Christians don't like hearing is that part is VOLUNTARY not mandatory. If a Muslim wants to swear on a Koran, and Kieth Ellison our Muslim Congressman did, they can. If an atheist runs for office they don't have to swear on any holy book. Separation of church and state does not ban participation. I it merely means no lawmaker is allowed to make religious law common law.

(April 17, 2017 at 1:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 17, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Quite the contrary:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

I am well aware of that treaty and article 11, not sure what you mean by "Quite the contrary". Combine that with the First Amendment and the Oath of Office "no religious test" that article supports my argument that "secular" does not mean a call to ban religion. "no religious pretext arising from religious opinions shall every produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries". 

It isn't banning anything, it is merely saying that religion cannot override common interests, thus the use of the words "tranquility" and "harmony".  That seems consistent with "Freedom of religion". "Secular" means neutrality, neither for or against, neutral. 

"The United States of America, is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is only saying the official government stance is that our laws are not bible based. It does remain that the individual rights of the citizen are in tact, including the ability to run for public office regardless of religion, but cannot be included or excluded based on a religious litmus test, thus "No religious test". 

It is perfectly legal for example for a politician to swear on a bible, but what Christians don't like hearing is that part is VOLUNTARY not mandatory. If a Muslim wants to swear on a Koran, and Kieth Ellison our Muslim Congressman did, they can. If an atheist runs for office they don't have to swear on any holy book. Separation of church and state does not ban participation. I it merely means no lawmaker is allowed to make religious law common law.

Amen, brother!

(April 15, 2017 at 11:38 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 11:23 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone on the list except for maybe the socialist, depending on what exactly was meant by that. It kinda doesn't fit in with the rest of what was on the list, because it is itself a political stance.

There can be Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, etc, who share similar political views as myself. Tibs, for example, has a lot of the same political views as myself and he's an atheist. I'd vote for his ass.

Why not the socialist?

Socialism (other then the soviet model) is about fairness, working for the common good and equality, what's so wrong with that?

An example of a socialist institution is the British National Health Service which runs of universal tax  (National Insurance) and gives universal free medical treatment at point of use.

It turns out that it is also cheaper for a nation to do its health this way

In the past few years my eldest son has had metal work put in his arm, my middle son had an operation to realign a broken bone and my mother had lengthy treatment for breast cancer all at no expense.

This is socialism in action and its great.

The problem with the Soviet model was that it paid all too much attention to the dictatorship and all too little to the proletariat. Capitalism engages in the same type of problem from the other end, paying too much attention to the system and not enough on the people.

(April 18, 2017 at 4:22 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 15, 2017 at 11:38 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why not the socialist?

Socialism (other then the soviet model) is about fairness, working for the common good and equality, what's so wrong with that?

An example of a socialist institution is the British National Health Service which runs of universal tax  (National Insurance) and gives universal free medical treatment at point of use.

It turns out that it is also cheaper for a nation to do its health this way

In the past few years my eldest son has had metal work put in his arm, my middle son had an operation to realign a broken bone and my mother had lengthy treatment for breast cancer all at no expense.

This is socialism in action and its great.

The problem with the Soviet model was that it paid all too much attention to the dictatorship and all too little to the proletariat. Capitalism engages in the same type of problem from the other end, paying too much attention to the system and not enough on the people.

I did say other than the soviet model. Its given socialism a bad name when really its about social justice.

(April 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 18, 2017 at 4:22 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: The problem with the Soviet model was that it paid all too much attention to the dictatorship and all too little to the proletariat. Capitalism engages in the same type of problem from the other end, paying too much attention to the system and not enough on the people.

I did say other than the soviet model. Its given socialism a bad name when really its about social justice.

Venezuela isn't doing so well. It seems that outside of Europe socialism tends to devolve very quickly. And in those countries the popular support for socialism doesn't ever seem to translate into a more just society. Quite often the opposite. Why that should be is a matter of debate. At least in the case of the Nordic countries their generous social programs rely heavily on exporting natural resources like oil more than a dynamic economy and responsive markets.

(April 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I did say other than the soviet model. Its given socialism a bad name when really its about social justice.

Venezuela isn't doing so well. It seems that outside of Europe socialism tends to devolve very quickly. And in those countries the popular support for socialism doesn't ever seem to translate into a more just society. Quite often the opposite. Why that should be is a matter of debate. At least in the case of the Nordic countries their generous social programs rely heavily on exporting natural resources like oil more than a dynamic economy and responsive markets.

Capitalism is destroying the World; you can keep your head in a box, or in the sand, or anywhere else that you want; a capitalistic society, such as the US, will end all mammalian life on this World -- that's a scientific fact, as sure as the "Earth moves".  And, so, what's the alternatives?  Capitalism is dead (as it will lead to a dead World, which means no more capitalism), and so, we are basically left with socialism or communism, and I think that the choice between those two is as clear as choosing spring water versus sewer water.

@Jeh

Do you see much of a future for social democracies that utilize capitalism as a tool in order to achieve directives of state or within the confines of what is not directly and explicitly contradictory to party doctrine?  Say, China, for example?

Personally, I'd love to see the world make a hard turn towards socialism, but I don;t think it could do so without utilizing the private market..nor do I think that it would be the best version of itself if it forbade capitalism on principle because of a "scientific fact" that capitalism kills earthses and whatnot.

(April 19, 2017 at 1:56 pm)Khemikal Wrote: @Jeh

Do you see much of a future for social democracies that utilize capitalism as a tool in order to achieve directives of state or within the confines of what is not directly and explicitly contradictory to party doctrine?  Say, China, for example?

Personally, I'd love to see the world make a hard turn towards socialism, but I don;t think it could do so without utilizing the private market..nor do I think that it would be the best version of itself if it forbade capitalism on principle because of a "scientific fact" that capitalism kills earthses and whatnot.

The problem with capitalism is that it drives individuals, communities, companies and societies to the lowest common denominator.  For instance, Obama's climate-change policies and/or directives were a tiny step in the direction needed to save the Planet which The Donald has now completely undone.  When you have a Society whereby people put their short-term economic gain over their children or grandchildren ceasing to exist, then you have a Society that is built upon irrational premises, because death is rarely a rational choice for any human being who is at least in decent health.  Therefore, capitalism is irrational because it is destructive.

Socialism, on the other hand, will guarantee every human being, without exception (at least in those countries that have it), a minimal standard of living, hence, life, which will insure that no human being (children, especially) will have to endure any condition of abject poverty.  Socialism will allow real climate change practices to be implemented while guaranteeing, without exception, that every human being has a good home with food, water, heat, clothing, and a minimal standard of living beyond that, which I would include of having Internet and cell phone access for all.

(April 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The problem with capitalism is that it drives individuals, communities, companies and societies to the lowest common denominator.  For instance, Obama's climate-change policies and/or directives were a tiny step in the direction needed to save the Planet which The Donald has now completely undone.  When you have a Society whereby people put their short-term economic gain over their children or grandchildren ceasing to exist, then you have a Society that is built upon irrational premises, because death is rarely a rational choice for any human being who is at least in decent health.  Therefore, capitalism is irrational because it is destructive.

I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism.  Capitalism gone wrong, essentially. Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?

Quote:Socialism, on the other hand, will guarantee every human being, without exception (at least in those countries that have it), a minimal standard of living, hence, life, which will insure that no human being (children, especially) will have to endure any condition of abject poverty.  Socialism will allow real climate change practices to be implemented while guaranteeing, without exception, that every human being has a good home with food, water, heat, clothing, and a minimal standard of living beyond that, which I would include of having Internet and cell phone access for all.

How, how will it do that?  We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.

How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services? I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen. People want more than they need. So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need. So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.

(April 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The problem with capitalism is that it drives individuals, communities, companies and societies to the lowest common denominator.  For instance, Obama's climate-change policies and/or directives were a tiny step in the direction needed to save the Planet which The Donald has now completely undone.  When you have a Society whereby people put their short-term economic gain over their children or grandchildren ceasing to exist, then you have a Society that is built upon irrational premises, because death is rarely a rational choice for any human being who is at least in decent health.  Therefore, capitalism is irrational because it is destructive.

I think you have a one sided and not entirely accurate view of capitalism.  Capitalism gone wrong, essentially.  Well sure, if people align their interests (or have their interests aligned) with shitty things shitty things happen..but if we were chasing the dollar on a bunch of awesome things...wouldn't awesome things happen?  

Quote:Socialism, on the other hand, will guarantee every human being, without exception (at least in those countries that have it), a minimal standard of living, hence, life, which will insure that no human being (children, especially) will have to endure any condition of abject poverty.  Socialism will allow real climate change practices to be implemented while guaranteeing, without exception, that every human being has a good home with food, water, heat, clothing, and a minimal standard of living beyond that, which I would include of having Internet and cell phone access for all.

How, how will it do that?  We know how capitalism can be employed to provide some of those things to some people...it's effectiveness is variable from place to place, time to time, and even within those places and times who has what is not uniform...but we can see that it does provide, and how.

How does socialism, in your view, provide those goods and services?  I -also- think that all of those things should be available to all people, I think that capitalism is a good way to acquire the resources required to make it happen.  People want more than they need.  So long as what people want is monetized the proceeds can go, in whatever portion we accept, to what we need.  So long as it's privately monetized, the state doesn't have to micromanage each process, it can focus on the shit they don't feel should be privately monetized.

Socialism and capitalism can coexist... but that bad version of capitalism doesn't get a free pass, as socialism tends to impose rules that forbid those bad practices, while providing incentives for "good" practices.
Sure, a Socialist system is still made up of people and it's inevitable that some cracks will show up... but they should be mostly harmless, due to all the checks that would be in place.

And, you know what?... Businesses can still be profitable in a heavily government-regulated environment.

The goods and services nowadays provided by companies would still be provided - if need be, at an extra monetary cost to the consumers.
Those goods and services which are not desirable, would disappear... and with them, some companies and jobs. But others pop up.
As oil becomes more expensive, all alternative energy sources become more profitable - investment flows to them, they become more efficient, and even more profitable... all now operating within the regulations imposed. Either oil companies become energy companies, like Shell is doing (http://www.shell.com/sustainability/envi...hange.html - at least it's pretending), or they go bust.
There are tons of products that have become obsolete and the companies that stuck with producing them became bankrupt. Companies that operate in a state that is clearly against humanity's future well-being should join the obsolete train.