HR:North Korea is a country that if they lost a war they would make sure they took as much as they could down with them.
Agentdark, I'm pretty sure the current regime is trying to survive. If this is the case, they're not going to start a war. That would only accelerate their own demise.
North Korea and Iraq are by far totally diffent situations
Iraq:Annoy Thorn in america side that we needed oil
NK:Nuclear weapons able to hit 2 of are very important allies
That is also not the situation we're dealing with, but at least you're doing better than Mono-G is.
Quote from IxidorVersionTwo »
Hey.
I barely know anything about the whole North Korea conflict, but when reading some posts, people said the leader would act in a not so nice way. How? Last time I knew, didnt North Korea only have about one through three nukes? While the United States, France, Great Britian, India, Russia, and others had way more nukes.
And I'm quite surprised to hear they have the 5th largest military.
Truly,
- Ixi v2
Only one nuke is enough, Ixidor.
As to how advanced NK's nuclear program is, I wouldn't know. They might have one to three, they might have more.
Actually, I'm not. NK's pumping nearly all of its resources into its military. That's why its people are in such poverty.
Well they arnt completly powerless they have the 5th largest army in world and a healthy supply of chemical weapens ,but I agree a Nuclear arsenal is there primary leverage.
Thing is North Korea only stands to lose in a war, even with their nuclear weapons. It only becomes a matter of time and damage scale. With nuclear weapons as leverage, they know no one will mess with them too far. No one will risk nuclear war. Thus, they have an insurance policy.
Quote from Prizm »
Call in Team America!
Was that movie good? It looks freaking hilarious, but then I hated Thunderbirds and anything that reminds me of it makes me want to stay away.
Quote from Mono-G »
This doesnt make sense Bush is willing to invade Iraq, Yet Iraq lets in weapons inspecters, has no weapons of mass destruction and is proven to not be linked to terrorists. Yet they are still invaded and when North Korea admit the opposite to Iraq, Bush ignores them.
(Theres no oil in North Korea)
Remember what I said about ignorance to the North Korean situation? This is it. North Korea is not analogous to Iraq. Don't treat them as the same situation.
The third Matrix's dialogue was freaking amazing. Shut up.
To answer your question: it can't. There's no possible way Episodes 1 and 2 can ever be made up for. The only thing Episode 3 can do is be a good movie on its own. Then, instead of ignoring the entire prequel trilogy, people will acknowledge Episode 3's existence and simply ignore the other two.
Now, what would make Episode 3 good? Let's see:
1. Don't have Jar-Jar Binks in it. Not even to have him die. In fact, have him die, but make that only available if you buy the DVD. That way we can satiate George Lucas' burning desire to make even more money off the franchise. Just ignore that Jar-Jar ever existed. If you throw Jar-Jar in just to be killed it'll be something gratuitous and without purpose, just like the pod race in Episode 1 and Yoda's lightsaber duel in Episode 2.
2. Construct a decent freaking story, something the two movies before it haven't done.
3. Make the story go somewhere. Do not make the whole of Episode III just a series of fight scenes. I'm not here to watch people die, I'm here to see a story unfold. If I want a bunch of fight scenes, I'll watch a martial arts match. At least the swordplay will be good.
4. Make the swordplay good.
5. Make the scene in which Anakin agrees to join Darth Sidious REALLY GOOD. Make it riveting, make the emotions believable, make me believe that I'm watching someone accept his own damnation. That's what I want to see. Make Hayden do the same scene three hundred times if that's what it takes to get it right.
6. Don't screw Natalie Portman and Christopher Lee over. They're good actors. Utilize this.
7. Explain who the hell the Sith are. Their ways, their training, what they have to go through, why the Dark Side allures to them, how they can deal with the destruction they know it will cause, etc. The past two movies have done nothing remotely close to this, despite the fact that these are the prequels, in which the galaxy was Jedi Disneyland.
Obviously I'm no real expert on the situation. But I'm not so sure how this whole thing is going to work. If the North is anything, it is shifting. First North Korea is willing to submit to talks, then it isn't, then things become hopeful, then talks begin, then talks end, then it's willing to submit to talks... Over and over again.
See, the thing is, I'm sure North Korea will die out in time. The situation that is in that place cannot be perpetuated. North Korea will inevitably have to open up. The question is just how smooth that transition is going to occur. What makes North Korea dangerous is that it is a very well-armed dying regime. They're capable of anything, and I'm not sure how much the US or anyone really knows about NK.
Military conflict? I don't know. Right now definitely no. Those talks we're doing? That's the best plan. Six nation talks are a good thing, as are one-on-one nation talks. Threatening North Korea would be idiocy, one because it won't accomplish anything and two because it would piss off all of our allies, and rightfully so. Anyone who thinks of attacking NK now is someone completely ignorant of the situation. Hell, not even Bush would pull a stunt like that.
However, in the long run... See, I'm not sure if we can avoid armed conflict with NK. But then again, people weren't sure we could avoid armed conflict with the USSR, and yet we did. Maybe it might happen again. I'm just scared of how much damage NK could do in the process, to both other countries and itself.
Quote from Canada23 »
And as for North Korea, I think that the reason that they wont give up their arms or reason is because their afraid or being backstabbed or they want to be respected and know across the world.
The reason they won't give up their arms is because they're not stupid. What benefit could they possibly gain for giving up their nuclear weapons? North Korea is an isolationist country with no allies. Nuclear weapons are their only leverage. That's their trump card. Without it, they'd be powerless in the world and succumb in just a matter of time.
I have been poor all my life. Before my mother died, I worked 2 jobs(as well as going to school) and paid about 1/3-1/2 the bills every month. Now, I work 3 jobs and live on my own. I have met, in my travels, many, many poor people, and I know how things actually are, whereas you only know things as you perceive them from your position. Living in abject poverty, as well as working since I was 12 has afforded me certain knowledge and experience that you lack. Any more questions?
... I'm going to go join Stax in his corner of the room and start crying.
No. What I argued on the News was a completely different subject: private charity. Senori(or someone) asked me if I thought *any* charity was acceptible, to which I replied that it is fine under the condition that it is noncompulsory, you can afford it, and the person truly deserves it, an example of which is the one you named above- a hard worker down on his luck. But never have I said that gov't aid is acceptable.
I swear you did at one point. I'll try to track it down.
The fact that the drug company needs to make money, and if they put their prices too high, their biggest customers - the poor - will not be able to afford the medicine.
True, but when the alternative is getting into a worse state of physical health, is there really an option? It's rather like selling water during a drought, isn't it? My point is supply/demand is not enough to control the price.
Nope, cuz they use insurance. Private insurance, to be specific. It is a strain on them, they're not exactly rich(both school teachers, actually). It is difficult, but they are able to pull it off. Private insurance(to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am tragically wrong) is not affiliated with a governing body, and is therefore perfectly cooool.
But what if they weren't able to afford the insurance? What makes Alternate Kevin deserve to die while Actual Kevin live? (Aside from the fact that Alternate Kevin is a rhetorical device and not an actual person).
Regarding the T2sux/Stax argument regarding Juan vs. Britney Spears:
I'd much rather listen to someone serving me food than Britney singing as well, but that's beside the point.
T2sux's point is valid, Stax. Britney Spears may not be great music in our eyes, but she deserves the money she makes. She's surviving in the world of entertainment. That's not an easy jungle to fight your way in.
But at the same time, we must remember that Juan is a human being, and as a human being I do not believe he is any less entitled to life than Britney Spears is. Less luxuries, maybe, but I do believe that as long as he is at least a laboring individual, he should be given access to the things he needs to survive. Now, T2sux, being the less extreme of the two extreme Capitalists participating in this debate (I never thought I'd refer to you as the lesser of two capitalists, but hey, even Hally's Comet has to come around sometime), I'm sure you must be able to agree with me at some level.
You think that you can argue that socialism is good without ever reading any source that says otherwise? Come on. What's the point in even debating this if you don't even understand the basic positions of the debate? Referring you to a book that disproves socialism isn't good? Where can I find where your arguments come from, Highroller? Where are the stats to back you up?
I never knew basic logic required statistics, msun. You seem to be the one making the outrageous statements.
Standard Oil created 300 different products through the WASTE of kerosene. Without it, we wouldn't have the world we have today. Besides, by the time of its antitrust trial, Standard Oil had around 65% market share (from 90%). How? It's horizontal trusts meant no new competition, didn't it?...
No, you're thinking monopoly. A "trust" is something different. There are two kinds, "vertical trust" is when a company controls all means of production from start to finish. For instance, if I'm making cars, I control everything from start to finish. The place I get the rubber from, the place that it's made into tires, the place that makes the engines, the place that assembles the cars, etc. That's a vertical trust. This, in benevolent hands, is justifiable, as it is efficient.
But then there's the horizontal trust. This was the problem with Standard Oil. What happened was Standard Oil made its competitors assign their stock to a board of trustees and receive trust certificates in return. Long story short, Standard Oil was one company controlling several companies that were supposedly competing against it. Any oil company that wasn't a part of this was crushed. This is why laissez-faire doesn't work.
Why do you let the government take money from you in the form of taxes? Would you choose to give them the money if you didn't have to? The Articles of Confederation is a totally different story. There, the government COULDN'T protect our rights because it didn't have the power to. The ideal government would only serve to protect those rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). It could also authorize force for the protection of those rights because they are inalienable. You have to have the right to determine if you want to be dead or alive, the right to determine how free you should be, and the right to determine how best to pursue happiness.
Because the government needs money to work its programs, which allow the nation to run. Your "no taxation" argument is disproven by yourself in a later post, so I won't bother there.
Without welfare, all Americans would be richer (except for the poor, they are tax exempt). What would those people do with the money? Improve the standard of living (even for the poor). What does that new increase in demand mean? An increase in jobs to supply that demand. Besides, show me the millions that will "starve" if they don't receive government sponsered checks. These are the people that can only survive on welfare. Helping these people only forces those right on the edge of poverty into it. Again, if you want to help the poor out, go right ahead. Don't force everyone else to go along with you.
Giving money to the empoverished makes them more so? How does this make sense?
I believe the reason the pill would cost so much is because it is a rare medical condition, and to make money the pill must cost that much.
I would think so too, but apparently that isn't the case. From what I understand, there's NO reason for the pill costing that much except that whoever manufactures it wants to make an obscene amount of money.
First of all, the developer of that drug has spent a lot of money on that drug. He has wasted time and effort just to give your teacher a chance at living a normal life. He has provided an OPPORTUNITY to your teacher, and this in itself is beneficial, not detrimental. In fact, if the developer knew that the gov't would regulate the drug the moment it came out, he might go into the computer business instead. In socialized health care, this couldn't happen either (the development of new drugs) because the gov't would be busy supplying the huge amount of people in the hospital for a common cold (it is free, remember). I encourage you to get people to donate money to the people that have to buy this drug, but in no way does the gov't have a right to take money from a people and give it to the people that must buy this drug (besides, think of the corruption and inefficiency of an agency unrestricted by the laws of competition)
See, that only works up to a point. I could make the same argument regardles of the price. Say I invented the pill, and I am the sole person who manufactures it. I say the pill should cost $100. Don't like that price? Tough. I'm working to provide you an OPPORTUNITY to live. Why shouldn't I make a profit off it? I might not have made the pill in a different system. In fact, I should probably charge $1,000 per pill.
"But Highroller, charging $1000 per pill is absurd!" Damn straight it is, but what keeps it from getting there? At what point does the argument cease to be justified?
Quote from msun641 »
Nothing makes pursuit of happiness of business owners more correct than the life of regular citizens. That's exactly my point. You can't sacrifice one for the other. The best thing a government can do to protect the lives of its citizens is to just protect their rights. Intervention by the government is harmful.
Is it a government's job to "feed people"? Why do you think someone can't feed himself? Because he is unproductive. To give him something is basically rewarding him for being unproductive.
This is the most laughable argument imaginable. You're really saying with a straight face that the people who are poor are only poor because they are lazy and unproductive? See, that only works in a world with perfect social mobility, infinite jobs, and is not real.
Let me put it this way. Let's bring the whole world back to the Industrial Revolution, and era whose quality of life was very much inferior to now but you, for a warped reason that's beyond me, seem to idolize.
My name is Joe Factoryworker. I'm some poor person, but I'm sure as hell not lazy. I'm going to do everything I freaking can to make it up to the top, 'cuz I've got dreams. All you need is dreams, right? I've got the strength and the dedication, so getting to the top should be a shoe-in. My name is Joe Factoryworker, and I'm the goddamn Spirit of America.
Now, our young Joe gets a job at a textile factory. All is going good for young Joe, and at first it all looks like a Horatio Alger novel, except something bad happens. Someone, through negligence, did not bolt one of the machines down correctly. Suddenly, the bolt comes loose and a big piece of heavy machinery comes falling right down upon Joe, crushing his leg.
So now Joe's got a crushed leg. Well, Joe is not able to work without two strong legs to move stuff around, so the company immediately fires him. "Sorry about your leg Joe, but hey, you've got another one right?" So now Joe is crippled and without a job. Now Joe is screwed. Who's going to hire him? Why would anyone in their right mind hire a cripple? That's inefficient, right?
In short, Joe is screwed. Through no fault of his own, through no lack of merit on his part, Joe has lost everything and has no way of ever going anywhere. Why? No reason at all. So, now that we see what's happened to Joe, msun, you want to explain to me why intervention on the government's part is harmful?
Quote from T2sux »
@Highroller- My eyes aren't great, so could you refrain from using that font, please? I have to go right up to the screen to read it.(And I thought Senori's blue fetish was bad... )
Actually, my usage of Times New Roman is logical, in that it is much easier to read given its use of serifs, which Verdana does not have. Senori's thing with blue text, on the other hand, is just plain weird.
I agree that it takes money to make money, sure. That is, if you wish to start a business, or produce a good. However, astronomical start-up costs are not involved in getting a job at a factory. Or, if need be, two factory jobs. Or three. Four, perhaps. *That* is what I think. So no, I don't agree with any form of governmental welfare system.
Didn't you state in an earlier debate on News that you were in favor of government welfare if it provided that boost a person needed to get back into the workforce? I mean, I fail to see how letting good workers who lose their jobs starve to death is beneficial, so you must clearly agree on some level.
The price is high, I'll admit. Even for a good drug.
Exactly. And what keeps the price from getting any higher?
You are right. I don't agree with socialized medicine. Which implies the question: is a person entitled to a product created by another. The fact that it is a life-saving product does not mean that a person is entitled to it by right. A pharmaceutical(sp?) development company who puts out a product is just as entitled to a profit from their product as someone who puts out car parts. Should they "with hold" it? Probably not. Do I think they have a right to? Sure.
Of course, of course. But how much profit are they entitled to? However much they want? Surely you can't agree with Evil Highroller and the $1000 pill?
Now, I'm going to share a story with you, a story I've shared with no one outside my family. I have a cousin Kevin. He is 13. Two years ago, my uncle brought him to the hospital because he had a fever of 103 and was vommiting violently. The hospital tentatively diagnosed him with Hepatitis B. This was later recinded. About a week later, doctors noticed the first signs of liver failure. Within one month, he had reached critical: almost 100% failure. He came close to dying several times. He began to recover slowly, but then was diagnosed with A-plastic anemia, attacking his bone marrow. He needed a transplant, got one, but his body rejected his transplant: Graft vs Host, it's called. After nearly a year of radiation treatment, he was finally allowed to come home. Months of painful recovery later, and he is still not his old self. The point? He is now on about 10 different drugs daily.
I told you this to make a point: He needs the drugs to live, but I don't believe he is entitled to them for free.
See, that's a great story. The best thing about it is that Kevin's alive and is healthy because his family can afford the medications. What if Kevin weren't in such a family? Kevin would be dead. Right?
But see, that doesn't fit into that whole Capitalist ideal, does it? Why have laissez-faire? Because the rich are more able than the poor, and thus deserve to be better off, right? But what about alternate Kevin here? What's he being punished for? He didn't really do anything, he just was born in a family less affluent than actual Kevin. So is it right to just let the guy die? I mean, there but for the grace of God go I, right? Nothing really separates the two, actual Kevin isn't better than alternate Kevin, it's just that the former is luckier.
Quote from msun641 »
RealityTwister: how does a government provide "free" health care? By taking money from their own citizens (limiting their pursuit of happiness). That gov't must initiate force to bring health care to the masses.
But why is that wrong? The government is taking care of its citizens. Seeing as how that's what a government is for, I fail to see the problem.
Quote from msun641 »
The counterargument, Fadeblue, is that you CAN'T privatize the judicial system or national defense. That denies us our rights to liberty.
Anything that CAN be privatized, however, should. My last statement was an attempt at humor. Sry if it offended you...
So what CAN be privatized, in your opinion? What makes roads able to be privatized, but the judicial system not?
Not to mention your argument leaves a lot of LOUSY situations open. I don’t want the water in my tap to be privatized. No way in hell. Having the government control it is perfectly fine by me.
Then we get to something like airports. How many airports do you really think we’d have if it were privatized?
Quote from msun641 »
You are dodging the point. If a business is rascist, it suffers two consequences. One, a productive person that the employer is rascist against will work somewhere else. A restriction of choice. Two, people that think being rascist is bad might consider the fact that the company is rascist when they decide to buy products. I agree that there is no metric data when hiring someone, but I would say that a college education, high school diploma, previous job exp., etc. are all pretty good determinants of how productive a person can be.
See, this is where it's clear your argument is distant from reality. You're faced with the reality of the business and saying, "No, racism in the business is impossible because it is inefficient!" I'm sorry, msun, but nothing is impossible if it's happening.
If you want free libraries with access to all, then go right ahead and build one. However, a lot of Americans don't if the cost to them is diminishing their personal rights. Just because you want free libraries for all doesn't mean that everyone else does. Besides, there are other ways of getting books to read besides a library. Do you think its fair for a person to get taxed on what he doesn't want? And of course you could compete. If you can open a library that can charge five cents less to borrow a book, you compete and win. Your value system gives priviledges to those that didn't earn them. I'm not sure that's very moral either. One more question: Did you seriously learn how to read from a library?
I learned how to read from a public school. I didn't have to pay for that. Was that wrong?
[font=Times New Roman]*Sigh* We ARE a democracy. Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy, and we are worlds more democratic than Athens ever was. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I swear, I need to find some way of creating some kind of automated response system for this.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
Quote from msun641 »
Socialism/communism as the best form of government is a very common belief. This quote was from a grad student I know very well (he posts on the Sparknotes economics board a lot).
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Right, ok, you were told to not quote in obtuse blocks of text, and to refrain from blindly quoting, and you have heeded... neither of them.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Alright, now the natural counterargument to all of this is that the Communist governments cited were not true Marxist. But that's neither here nor there, since it's fairly obvious that the "basic tenets of socialism" lead to neither economic catastrophe, nor the loss of millions of lives. Every nation has some form of mixed socialism/capitalism economy. We are no closer to an apocalyptic nightmare than we were before, and in fact the exact opposite is true. This in mind, I'm tempted to label your argument - oh sorry, whoever's argument you copy/pasted - as radical nonsense, but for the sake of humor, I'll read on.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Ok... Your grad student friend proceeds to do the same thing you're doing right now, citing sources instead of using the quotes to augment his own arguments along with providing necessary explanation. Listing titles means nothing to me. Moreover, I don't think Ayn Rand is the best source for economic theory.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
Quote from ljossberir »
Basically, I favor a government that does nothing but what it needs to do, and allows it's citizens as much personal and economic freedom as possible.
To elaborate more on the economy, I support a *mild* version of the old laissez faire policies. Again, I think government should be allowed to step in but only when there is an *obvious* need.
Here is an example. I do not support the breakup of monopolies that were made so through their own ingenuity and creativity. On the other hand, I do support the breakup of monopolies that were made so through unfair business practices. The trick is defining what we mean by "unfair" here.
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Yeah really. I mean, I think we can universally agree that the horizontal trusts implemented by Standard Oil are just flat out wrong. From there things get muddy and Caesar would prefer sitting out on those arguments and talking about himself in the third person.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
Quote from Binary Dragon »
But there already are restrictions on voting. You have to be a US citizin, you have to be 18 years of age, you have to not be mentally incapacitated, you have to be registered, you have to be not convicted of a felony. Those are just the ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there're more. And if you look at most of them, they are there with what seems to be the purpose of keeping those who aren't able to understand the consequences of their vote from voting. How is my idea any different than an extension of that?
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Binary, those aren't really restrictions. We do not let the retarded, criminals, people who are not citizens, and people who have not yet graduated from High School vote. That's hardly Federalism, that's like common sense.[/font]
Quote from ljossberir »
[font=Arial]So he wouldn't ban opium, either?
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]He's got a point there Senori.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
Quote from msun641 »
I don't see anything "over the top" about his arguments. You yourself point out that his conclusions are correct. Anyway, when a government gives a person what was rightfully someone elses, it is morally wrong. Does anyone deny this?
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Yeah, but I also think that when a government allows its own people to starve to death it's also wrong. So we've got a bit of a dilemma there now don't we?
Taxation does not equate to theft. The very idea is ridiculous. But then, perhaps we should go back to the Articles of Confederation, where all the government had the power to do was politely ask for money?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
Quote from T2sux »
...which brings us back to the first question: should the wellbeing of the individual citizens --- ie the food, job, and shelter of the individual citizens --- be the responsibility of the gov't, ie the taxpayers? [/font]
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I should think to at least some extent it should be, T2sux. As an intelligent being who has obviously at least read something on the subject, I believe you and I can both agree when I say that Capitalism requires money to make money, yes? Therefore, you must surely agree with some form of welfare.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I'd like to share with you something my AP Modern European History teacher told me that bothered me. He apparently has a medical condition that requires him to buy a lot of medicine. A lot. I didn't really ask for details. But the thing that bothered me was this. He showed me a bag of the various medications he took. One of them was a brown pill about as big as your pinky nail. That medicine costs around $5 per pill. Now apparently there is no reason for the pill to cost that much. It costs that much because it does. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Now, I admit I know nothing about medicine, but unless they pumped that pill with cocaine that price doesn't make sense to me. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Now, I'm guessing you don't agree with the full socialized medicine shebang or not. I'm not sure if I do. I'd have to look at costs, taxes, quality and such and do a bunch of calculations I do not know how to begin doing before I can be sure. But either way, is it right for someone to withhold medicine from another person just because they do not have the money to pay for it? Is that ever right? Forget Communism or Capitalism or any other ism here. We're in the ideal fantasy land, so ideally we won't have any "isms" to annoy us. Just answer that basic question. Maybe from your answer we might be able to get back to that "ideal government" question that this thread was originally supposed to be about.[/font]
[/font][font=Times New Roman]
Quote from msun641 »
The bank invests the money. This improves the standard of living. Besides, you are basically saying that the poor are completely helpless. That is degrading. They can get a job, learn new skills, and work their way up.
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]In theory. What if they aren't able to? What if, through no fault of their own, they get screwed over? What then? Is this fair? You assume perfect social mobility, msun, but I'd like to see numbers to back this.[/font]
Yes that does make sense. It is my opinion and I am terribly sorry for stating it like it is factual. I went looking at some of my other posts here because I was going to say that I had never actually stated that it was a fact but I actually did state that it was a fact. I apologize for this and I guess if I were to make an excuse (which is what comes next, naturally) I would have to say that I get a little carried away in my responses. I will try to keep my opinions seperate from my facts in the future.
Dude, don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal.
Washu, imagine I'm making a fist and holding it a centimeter away from your face. I respect your right to express yourself up to that point. Any further is not allowed. You were wrong in this scenario. No matter what their behavior was, nothing excuses physical violence. If nothing else, you now have no ability to complain.
I would recommend leaving and going to another school. But that isn't always the most available option (although why the hell you got stuck in the middle of nowhere is beyond me). At least avoid bringing out the knife. That's just uncalled for. Stick with the tinfoil hat man. Stick with the tinfoil.
Quote from Qetu »
At least you don't have scientiologists or davidians with you!
Davidians?
Quote from XxsurferbabexX »
arc that is totally tru
just let ppl do their own thing if they arnt hurting u and u can avoid fights and trubble!
Ok, I hate to be a complete jerk in this regard, but can you please try to properly spell? SMS speak is really irritating after a while.
Quote from Arc »
You should have been expelled. What you did was not justified at all. You merely proved you are a moron.
Agreed.
That said, I believe in freedom of religion. Strangely enough, this was a topic in my Teaching Strategies and Accomodations class today (I am getting a degree in education). The discussion question was something like this:
[i]You are a teacher in a public school. You have set aside the last fifteen minutes of class to allow each student to quietly read their favorite novel. You notice one student is reading [I]The Satanic Bible[/i]. He is dressed in solid black. When you ask what he is reading, he tells you the truth. What do you do?[/b]
There's fifteen people in the class. Everyone in the class (myself included) made sure to mention they were Christian.
Everyone in the class agreed the book should be taken away and he should be sent to the office immediately, with two people suggesting that he be checked for weapons.
Well, almost everyone, that is.
I said this: "I don't see a problem here. He's quietly reading from his favorite novel, right? He's not disturbing anyone around him. He's following instructions. Besides, its just some Levay BS anyway. He's guarenteed his freedom of religion as long as he's not harming anyone and it doesn't seem like he is. Are you going to tell Susie she can't read her Bible during this time? Are you going to send her to the office immediately?"
There was silence for several minutes and everyone just stared at me. Then it degenerated into a debate of them against me for the next twenty minutes. It got a bit heated after a while before the professor piped in on my side. I didn't hit anyone though because, you know, [i]I'm not a moron.[/i]
It figures. It's always the individual that's persecuted. The group could get away with murder. I'm glad I managed to find a decent place to go.
I am not your traditional Linkin Park lover, nor am I into rap, but I must say that Linkin Park did two things right. One, despite popular belief, back in the day in oh 1999ish they WERE original. Perhaps I am talking out of my ass, but when my friend had picked up Hybrid Theory when it came out, Linkin park was not pop music, nor was it easily bashed. It WAS fresh,crisp and a nice break from "pop" music of the day (i.e. turn on the radio and hearing any of your normal run of the mill "thug gangsta' rap"). Now though, they sound like everyone else, BECAUSE of everyone else. People saw Linkin Park sold well underground, people made them mainstream, people make more money than we will ever see in our lifetime because of it. Then, other people saw how well 'Park sold, and formulated some more whiny, grungy, metal bands.
Agreement.
Another problem is that they chose the two worst songs on Hybrid Theory to be their first two singles. After that, I was fully ready to write them off, and did until I heard the rest of the album.
edit: @Highroller, or whoever asked Rosewater about living elsewhere: I have lived in Russia, Austria, and Italy, and have traveled to Spain, Mexico, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Puerto Rico, and Canada. I believe America is the greatest country in the world.
No, that's great for you. As I said, I'm not knocking people who think that America is the greatest country in the world. I'll agree. It's just that I think it's silly for people in America to think of it as necessarily a fact just because they've heard it so many times.
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
Poverty in America is real to an extent but the poverty line is preposterous. I have two friends who are collecting SSDI due to significant disability that prevents them from working to earn a living. They qualify as being below the pov. line. At this time, they have 2 computers, 2 TV's, a telephone line, a cell phone, and a highspeed internet connection. Not to mention the digital cable and the storage unit that they keep. They have all that, and yet they are poverty stricken by America's standard.
That's very interesting. I'll have to look into just what exactly qualifies as poverty more closely.
Wow... I learned something from a Magic site. Who'd have thought?
Now then, there are several responses: I had posted a list of some reasons why America was better than any other country and I stated that these reasons were widely accepted. Someone apparently disagreed and stated that the wide acceptance of those facts was not true. The facts in question are America being the only superpower and America having the largest economy in the world. I cannot for the life of me, see how either of those facts are untrue. If you have some kind of proof or something, let me know.
Mark, in all fairness, you have to understand how silly that sounds. "America is the greatest country in the world" is an opinion. You can't just tote it around as a fact because it's not a fact, it's a matter of personal preference. Now, if you were saying, "America is the most powerful country in the world," then we'd at least be able to confirm or deny that with facts. But you can't argue "America is the greatest country in the world," because each statement is valid. You believe America is the greatest country in the world? Great, I believe Singapore is. Now, you might disagree, but you can't possibly argue against me on that.
Allow me to explain that last part further. You believe America is the greatest country in the world because of X, Y, and Z. All of which are facts that I have proven. I believe Singapore is the greatest country in the world because I like it the best. See, the problem with this situation is that what we say is equally valid. This isn't like a moral judgement where if I said, "Doing X is wrong." Then what we used to arrive at a conclusion would matter. But it doesn't in this situation.
I think saying taht they can't change their name is mean. Why not just let it be that once you reach 100,000 posts, you can request to change. Better yet, every 100,000 posts you can choose to change.
It won't happen. Not even the legendary Johnny_Blaze himself could accomplish such numbers.
Senori, there were depressions before (all of them caused by government interference). Why was this one so long? Because FDR refused to accept that the government was wrong!
*Laughs* Oh please. FDR refused to accept the government was wrong? For one, as has been pointed out before, your point of FDR causing the depression is idiocy. He didn't cause the Depression, the Depression was why the man was elected in the first place.
Moreover, FDR did have problems getting his policies passed. Some of his organizations were turned aside due to being unconstitutional. Thing is, that progressively stopped happening. Why? Because it was actually working. Would FDR's policies work now? Probably not. That's why a lot of the organizations he created were dismantled after the Great Depression. But they worked then.
By your arguments, Highroller, why don't we put all of the people in the US that are unemployed on the government payroll and let them dig holes and fill them back in. That would "provide jobs"! Jobs are only good if they are PRODUCTIVE! Giving more recent examples...
msun, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Great Depression was a time of rampant unemployment. People simply did not have jobs. If people aren't getting paid, then people aren't going to be spending money either, and the economy further and further degrades. What you are stating is that the government should have turned its back on all of the starving people in America and simply allowed the Depression to go on. That's bull. Not to mention a man before him had tried that. As a result, President Hoover's lasting legacy is the "Hooverville".
My question to you is, of course, do the American people want their money going into welfare recipients getting psychic training? Do you want YOUR money taken away (forced) by the government (through taxes) to fund PSYCHIC TRAINING? Jobs are not the issue here. Progress is. Documenting the different ways of cooking spinach (see my posts, again) is not making progress. It is using taxpayer money (making the American people poorer) to give money to others. Redistribution does not cause economic growth. Give me any qualified person who says that and I'll concede this argument. In the most basic essence, taxes waste money. Pretend someone has nine dollars and eight people have no money. The government takes the nine dollars and redistributes it. 9+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=9. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9.
Ok, pulling out one ludicrous example that didn't take place during the Great Depression is not going to help you too much. In fact, that's the biggest problem you have in your argument: you're trying to impose FDR's policies on the world of now. Of course it's not going to work, we're in a time of prosperity. But the Great Depression was not such a case.
Redistribution does cause economic growth. The economy is strong if money is being circulated. If money is not moving, there is no economy. I think we can all understand at least that much.
The problem is what you're stating is exactly the problem which caused the Great Depression in the first place: pure capitalism's natural tendency to create concentrations of wealth. Concentrations of wealth kill an economy.
Honestly, it seems like you're trying to depict FDR as trying to turn the US into a world of Communism just because he saw that government intervention was necessary. Let me give you an example of why this is incorrect. It's a not too commonly known fact that the Great Depression was one of excess. There was food and plenty of it. So why were people starving? Part of the reason was because of railroad prices. It cost more to actually ship the food than one could make by selling it elsewhere, so the food was left to rot. Another was to control the supply so the price would stay high enough. Now that's a pretty lousy situation, isn't it? I think everyone here can agree that if the government intervenes there, it's a blessed thing.
This makes everything equal. However, you must PAY the person who does this redistributing! That makes the total more like 8.5.
So what? It also allows more people to actually have money to work with. You need money to make money in Capitalism.
Highroller, you have been the weakest poster in this board yet (since I've been posting). You don't even HAVE a counter-theory. All you do is say something is "the biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my entire life" and expect people to believe it. Read what I put on this board before you put your ignorance on display.
*Laugh* I didn't think such a matter was necessary.
And even more evidence that supports the minimum wage argument that I present:
So what're you saying? You want to obliterate the minimum wage? Do you realize WHY the minimum wage was created to begin with?
Quote from Senori »
Also, I notice how this fails to mention, say, the recession of the late eighties and early nineties, following the practices of the Reagan/Bush administration.
You mean stagflation? Yeah, I'd like to hear his response to this as well.
EDIT: The Gold Standard is inherently unstable. Tieing the currency directly to something so volatile isn't always wise.
Not to mention inefficient. There's a reason we took everything off specie backing a long time ago.
Agentdark, I'm pretty sure the current regime is trying to survive. If this is the case, they're not going to start a war. That would only accelerate their own demise.
That is also not the situation we're dealing with, but at least you're doing better than Mono-G is.
Only one nuke is enough, Ixidor.
As to how advanced NK's nuclear program is, I wouldn't know. They might have one to three, they might have more.
Actually, I'm not. NK's pumping nearly all of its resources into its military. That's why its people are in such poverty.
Thing is North Korea only stands to lose in a war, even with their nuclear weapons. It only becomes a matter of time and damage scale. With nuclear weapons as leverage, they know no one will mess with them too far. No one will risk nuclear war. Thus, they have an insurance policy.
Was that movie good? It looks freaking hilarious, but then I hated Thunderbirds and anything that reminds me of it makes me want to stay away.
Remember what I said about ignorance to the North Korean situation? This is it. North Korea is not analogous to Iraq. Don't treat them as the same situation.
To answer your question: it can't. There's no possible way Episodes 1 and 2 can ever be made up for. The only thing Episode 3 can do is be a good movie on its own. Then, instead of ignoring the entire prequel trilogy, people will acknowledge Episode 3's existence and simply ignore the other two.
Now, what would make Episode 3 good? Let's see:
1. Don't have Jar-Jar Binks in it. Not even to have him die. In fact, have him die, but make that only available if you buy the DVD. That way we can satiate George Lucas' burning desire to make even more money off the franchise. Just ignore that Jar-Jar ever existed. If you throw Jar-Jar in just to be killed it'll be something gratuitous and without purpose, just like the pod race in Episode 1 and Yoda's lightsaber duel in Episode 2.
2. Construct a decent freaking story, something the two movies before it haven't done.
3. Make the story go somewhere. Do not make the whole of Episode III just a series of fight scenes. I'm not here to watch people die, I'm here to see a story unfold. If I want a bunch of fight scenes, I'll watch a martial arts match. At least the swordplay will be good.
4. Make the swordplay good.
5. Make the scene in which Anakin agrees to join Darth Sidious REALLY GOOD. Make it riveting, make the emotions believable, make me believe that I'm watching someone accept his own damnation. That's what I want to see. Make Hayden do the same scene three hundred times if that's what it takes to get it right.
6. Don't screw Natalie Portman and Christopher Lee over. They're good actors. Utilize this.
7. Explain who the hell the Sith are. Their ways, their training, what they have to go through, why the Dark Side allures to them, how they can deal with the destruction they know it will cause, etc. The past two movies have done nothing remotely close to this, despite the fact that these are the prequels, in which the galaxy was Jedi Disneyland.
I think that'll be enough.
Obviously I'm no real expert on the situation. But I'm not so sure how this whole thing is going to work. If the North is anything, it is shifting. First North Korea is willing to submit to talks, then it isn't, then things become hopeful, then talks begin, then talks end, then it's willing to submit to talks... Over and over again.
See, the thing is, I'm sure North Korea will die out in time. The situation that is in that place cannot be perpetuated. North Korea will inevitably have to open up. The question is just how smooth that transition is going to occur. What makes North Korea dangerous is that it is a very well-armed dying regime. They're capable of anything, and I'm not sure how much the US or anyone really knows about NK.
Military conflict? I don't know. Right now definitely no. Those talks we're doing? That's the best plan. Six nation talks are a good thing, as are one-on-one nation talks. Threatening North Korea would be idiocy, one because it won't accomplish anything and two because it would piss off all of our allies, and rightfully so. Anyone who thinks of attacking NK now is someone completely ignorant of the situation. Hell, not even Bush would pull a stunt like that.
However, in the long run... See, I'm not sure if we can avoid armed conflict with NK. But then again, people weren't sure we could avoid armed conflict with the USSR, and yet we did. Maybe it might happen again. I'm just scared of how much damage NK could do in the process, to both other countries and itself.
The reason they won't give up their arms is because they're not stupid. What benefit could they possibly gain for giving up their nuclear weapons? North Korea is an isolationist country with no allies. Nuclear weapons are their only leverage. That's their trump card. Without it, they'd be powerless in the world and succumb in just a matter of time.
... I'm going to go join Stax in his corner of the room and start crying.
I swear you did at one point. I'll try to track it down.
True, but when the alternative is getting into a worse state of physical health, is there really an option? It's rather like selling water during a drought, isn't it? My point is supply/demand is not enough to control the price.
But what if they weren't able to afford the insurance? What makes Alternate Kevin deserve to die while Actual Kevin live? (Aside from the fact that Alternate Kevin is a rhetorical device and not an actual person).
Regarding the T2sux/Stax argument regarding Juan vs. Britney Spears:
I'd much rather listen to someone serving me food than Britney singing as well, but that's beside the point.
T2sux's point is valid, Stax. Britney Spears may not be great music in our eyes, but she deserves the money she makes. She's surviving in the world of entertainment. That's not an easy jungle to fight your way in.
But at the same time, we must remember that Juan is a human being, and as a human being I do not believe he is any less entitled to life than Britney Spears is. Less luxuries, maybe, but I do believe that as long as he is at least a laboring individual, he should be given access to the things he needs to survive. Now, T2sux, being the less extreme of the two extreme Capitalists participating in this debate (I never thought I'd refer to you as the lesser of two capitalists, but hey, even Hally's Comet has to come around sometime), I'm sure you must be able to agree with me at some level.
I never knew basic logic required statistics, msun. You seem to be the one making the outrageous statements.
No, you're thinking monopoly. A "trust" is something different. There are two kinds, "vertical trust" is when a company controls all means of production from start to finish. For instance, if I'm making cars, I control everything from start to finish. The place I get the rubber from, the place that it's made into tires, the place that makes the engines, the place that assembles the cars, etc. That's a vertical trust. This, in benevolent hands, is justifiable, as it is efficient.
But then there's the horizontal trust. This was the problem with Standard Oil. What happened was Standard Oil made its competitors assign their stock to a board of trustees and receive trust certificates in return. Long story short, Standard Oil was one company controlling several companies that were supposedly competing against it. Any oil company that wasn't a part of this was crushed. This is why laissez-faire doesn't work.
Because the government needs money to work its programs, which allow the nation to run. Your "no taxation" argument is disproven by yourself in a later post, so I won't bother there.
Giving money to the empoverished makes them more so? How does this make sense?
I would think so too, but apparently that isn't the case. From what I understand, there's NO reason for the pill costing that much except that whoever manufactures it wants to make an obscene amount of money.
See, that only works up to a point. I could make the same argument regardles of the price. Say I invented the pill, and I am the sole person who manufactures it. I say the pill should cost $100. Don't like that price? Tough. I'm working to provide you an OPPORTUNITY to live. Why shouldn't I make a profit off it? I might not have made the pill in a different system. In fact, I should probably charge $1,000 per pill.
"But Highroller, charging $1000 per pill is absurd!" Damn straight it is, but what keeps it from getting there? At what point does the argument cease to be justified?
Is it a government's job to "feed people"? Why do you think someone can't feed himself? Because he is unproductive. To give him something is basically rewarding him for being unproductive.
This is the most laughable argument imaginable. You're really saying with a straight face that the people who are poor are only poor because they are lazy and unproductive? See, that only works in a world with perfect social mobility, infinite jobs, and is not real.
Let me put it this way. Let's bring the whole world back to the Industrial Revolution, and era whose quality of life was very much inferior to now but you, for a warped reason that's beyond me, seem to idolize.
My name is Joe Factoryworker. I'm some poor person, but I'm sure as hell not lazy. I'm going to do everything I freaking can to make it up to the top, 'cuz I've got dreams. All you need is dreams, right? I've got the strength and the dedication, so getting to the top should be a shoe-in. My name is Joe Factoryworker, and I'm the goddamn Spirit of America.
Now, our young Joe gets a job at a textile factory. All is going good for young Joe, and at first it all looks like a Horatio Alger novel, except something bad happens. Someone, through negligence, did not bolt one of the machines down correctly. Suddenly, the bolt comes loose and a big piece of heavy machinery comes falling right down upon Joe, crushing his leg.
So now Joe's got a crushed leg. Well, Joe is not able to work without two strong legs to move stuff around, so the company immediately fires him. "Sorry about your leg Joe, but hey, you've got another one right?" So now Joe is crippled and without a job. Now Joe is screwed. Who's going to hire him? Why would anyone in their right mind hire a cripple? That's inefficient, right?
In short, Joe is screwed. Through no fault of his own, through no lack of merit on his part, Joe has lost everything and has no way of ever going anywhere. Why? No reason at all. So, now that we see what's happened to Joe, msun, you want to explain to me why intervention on the government's part is harmful?
Actually, my usage of Times New Roman is logical, in that it is much easier to read given its use of serifs, which Verdana does not have. Senori's thing with blue text, on the other hand, is just plain weird.
Didn't you state in an earlier debate on News that you were in favor of government welfare if it provided that boost a person needed to get back into the workforce? I mean, I fail to see how letting good workers who lose their jobs starve to death is beneficial, so you must clearly agree on some level.
Exactly. And what keeps the price from getting any higher?
Of course, of course. But how much profit are they entitled to? However much they want? Surely you can't agree with Evil Highroller and the $1000 pill?
I told you this to make a point: He needs the drugs to live, but I don't believe he is entitled to them for free.
See, that's a great story. The best thing about it is that Kevin's alive and is healthy because his family can afford the medications. What if Kevin weren't in such a family? Kevin would be dead. Right?
But see, that doesn't fit into that whole Capitalist ideal, does it? Why have laissez-faire? Because the rich are more able than the poor, and thus deserve to be better off, right? But what about alternate Kevin here? What's he being punished for? He didn't really do anything, he just was born in a family less affluent than actual Kevin. So is it right to just let the guy die? I mean, there but for the grace of God go I, right? Nothing really separates the two, actual Kevin isn't better than alternate Kevin, it's just that the former is luckier.
But why is that wrong? The government is taking care of its citizens. Seeing as how that's what a government is for, I fail to see the problem.
Anything that CAN be privatized, however, should. My last statement was an attempt at humor. Sry if it offended you...
So what CAN be privatized, in your opinion? What makes roads able to be privatized, but the judicial system not?
Not to mention your argument leaves a lot of LOUSY situations open. I don’t want the water in my tap to be privatized. No way in hell. Having the government control it is perfectly fine by me.
Then we get to something like airports. How many airports do you really think we’d have if it were privatized?
See, this is where it's clear your argument is distant from reality. You're faced with the reality of the business and saying, "No, racism in the business is impossible because it is inefficient!" I'm sorry, msun, but nothing is impossible if it's happening.
I learned how to read from a public school. I didn't have to pay for that. Was that wrong?
[font=Times New Roman]*Sigh* We ARE a democracy. Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy, and we are worlds more democratic than Athens ever was. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I swear, I need to find some way of creating some kind of automated response system for this.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Right, ok, you were told to not quote in obtuse blocks of text, and to refrain from blindly quoting, and you have heeded... neither of them.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Alright, now the natural counterargument to all of this is that the Communist governments cited were not true Marxist. But that's neither here nor there, since it's fairly obvious that the "basic tenets of socialism" lead to neither economic catastrophe, nor the loss of millions of lives. Every nation has some form of mixed socialism/capitalism economy. We are no closer to an apocalyptic nightmare than we were before, and in fact the exact opposite is true. This in mind, I'm tempted to label your argument - oh sorry, whoever's argument you copy/pasted - as radical nonsense, but for the sake of humor, I'll read on.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Ok... Your grad student friend proceeds to do the same thing you're doing right now, citing sources instead of using the quotes to augment his own arguments along with providing necessary explanation. Listing titles means nothing to me. Moreover, I don't think Ayn Rand is the best source for economic theory.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Yeah really. I mean, I think we can universally agree that the horizontal trusts implemented by Standard Oil are just flat out wrong. From there things get muddy and Caesar would prefer sitting out on those arguments and talking about himself in the third person.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Binary, those aren't really restrictions. We do not let the retarded, criminals, people who are not citizens, and people who have not yet graduated from High School vote. That's hardly Federalism, that's like common sense.[/font]
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]He's got a point there Senori.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Yeah, but I also think that when a government allows its own people to starve to death it's also wrong. So we've got a bit of a dilemma there now don't we?
Taxation does not equate to theft. The very idea is ridiculous. But then, perhaps we should go back to the Articles of Confederation, where all the government had the power to do was politely ask for money?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I should think to at least some extent it should be, T2sux. As an intelligent being who has obviously at least read something on the subject, I believe you and I can both agree when I say that Capitalism requires money to make money, yes? Therefore, you must surely agree with some form of welfare.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I'd like to share with you something my AP Modern European History teacher told me that bothered me. He apparently has a medical condition that requires him to buy a lot of medicine. A lot. I didn't really ask for details. But the thing that bothered me was this. He showed me a bag of the various medications he took. One of them was a brown pill about as big as your pinky nail. That medicine costs around $5 per pill. Now apparently there is no reason for the pill to cost that much. It costs that much because it does. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Now, I admit I know nothing about medicine, but unless they pumped that pill with cocaine that price doesn't make sense to me. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Now, I'm guessing you don't agree with the full socialized medicine shebang or not. I'm not sure if I do. I'd have to look at costs, taxes, quality and such and do a bunch of calculations I do not know how to begin doing before I can be sure. But either way, is it right for someone to withhold medicine from another person just because they do not have the money to pay for it? Is that ever right? Forget Communism or Capitalism or any other ism here. We're in the ideal fantasy land, so ideally we won't have any "isms" to annoy us. Just answer that basic question. Maybe from your answer we might be able to get back to that "ideal government" question that this thread was originally supposed to be about.[/font]
[/font][font=Times New Roman][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]In theory. What if they aren't able to? What if, through no fault of their own, they get screwed over? What then? Is this fair? You assume perfect social mobility, msun, but I'd like to see numbers to back this.[/font]
Dude, don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal.
I would recommend leaving and going to another school. But that isn't always the most available option (although why the hell you got stuck in the middle of nowhere is beyond me). At least avoid bringing out the knife. That's just uncalled for. Stick with the tinfoil hat man. Stick with the tinfoil.
Davidians?
Ok, I hate to be a complete jerk in this regard, but can you please try to properly spell? SMS speak is really irritating after a while.
Agreed.
It figures. It's always the individual that's persecuted. The group could get away with murder. I'm glad I managed to find a decent place to go.
Agreement.
Another problem is that they chose the two worst songs on Hybrid Theory to be their first two singles. After that, I was fully ready to write them off, and did until I heard the rest of the album.
No, that's great for you. As I said, I'm not knocking people who think that America is the greatest country in the world. I'll agree. It's just that I think it's silly for people in America to think of it as necessarily a fact just because they've heard it so many times.
That's very interesting. I'll have to look into just what exactly qualifies as poverty more closely.
Wow... I learned something from a Magic site. Who'd have thought?
Mark, in all fairness, you have to understand how silly that sounds. "America is the greatest country in the world" is an opinion. You can't just tote it around as a fact because it's not a fact, it's a matter of personal preference. Now, if you were saying, "America is the most powerful country in the world," then we'd at least be able to confirm or deny that with facts. But you can't argue "America is the greatest country in the world," because each statement is valid. You believe America is the greatest country in the world? Great, I believe Singapore is. Now, you might disagree, but you can't possibly argue against me on that.
Allow me to explain that last part further. You believe America is the greatest country in the world because of X, Y, and Z. All of which are facts that I have proven. I believe Singapore is the greatest country in the world because I like it the best. See, the problem with this situation is that what we say is equally valid. This isn't like a moral judgement where if I said, "Doing X is wrong." Then what we used to arrive at a conclusion would matter. But it doesn't in this situation.
Does any of what I just said make sense?
It won't happen. Not even the legendary Johnny_Blaze himself could accomplish such numbers.
*Laughs* Oh please. FDR refused to accept the government was wrong? For one, as has been pointed out before, your point of FDR causing the depression is idiocy. He didn't cause the Depression, the Depression was why the man was elected in the first place.
Moreover, FDR did have problems getting his policies passed. Some of his organizations were turned aside due to being unconstitutional. Thing is, that progressively stopped happening. Why? Because it was actually working. Would FDR's policies work now? Probably not. That's why a lot of the organizations he created were dismantled after the Great Depression. But they worked then.
msun, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Great Depression was a time of rampant unemployment. People simply did not have jobs. If people aren't getting paid, then people aren't going to be spending money either, and the economy further and further degrades. What you are stating is that the government should have turned its back on all of the starving people in America and simply allowed the Depression to go on. That's bull. Not to mention a man before him had tried that. As a result, President Hoover's lasting legacy is the "Hooverville".
Ok, pulling out one ludicrous example that didn't take place during the Great Depression is not going to help you too much. In fact, that's the biggest problem you have in your argument: you're trying to impose FDR's policies on the world of now. Of course it's not going to work, we're in a time of prosperity. But the Great Depression was not such a case.
Redistribution does cause economic growth. The economy is strong if money is being circulated. If money is not moving, there is no economy. I think we can all understand at least that much.
The problem is what you're stating is exactly the problem which caused the Great Depression in the first place: pure capitalism's natural tendency to create concentrations of wealth. Concentrations of wealth kill an economy.
Honestly, it seems like you're trying to depict FDR as trying to turn the US into a world of Communism just because he saw that government intervention was necessary. Let me give you an example of why this is incorrect. It's a not too commonly known fact that the Great Depression was one of excess. There was food and plenty of it. So why were people starving? Part of the reason was because of railroad prices. It cost more to actually ship the food than one could make by selling it elsewhere, so the food was left to rot. Another was to control the supply so the price would stay high enough. Now that's a pretty lousy situation, isn't it? I think everyone here can agree that if the government intervenes there, it's a blessed thing.
So what? It also allows more people to actually have money to work with. You need money to make money in Capitalism.
*Laugh* I didn't think such a matter was necessary.
So what're you saying? You want to obliterate the minimum wage? Do you realize WHY the minimum wage was created to begin with?
You mean stagflation? Yeah, I'd like to hear his response to this as well.
Not to mention inefficient. There's a reason we took everything off specie backing a long time ago.