RECENT TOPICS » View all
Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked
Index » 喫茶店 (Koohii Lounge)
nadiatims wrote:
I'll just end by starting a survey.
Would you be for or against a break up the united states allowing for people of different political philosophies to live under the rules of their choice? Yes, No, maybe?
please also state your political persuasion.
I'll kick off.
(for/against)
libertarian:1/0
republican: 0/0
democrat:0/0
independant:0/0
non-voter: 0/0
please コピペ the above and append your position.
Let me rephrase your question so its a bit more applicable for more internationals.
Would you be for or against the dissolution of your country's counties/states/etc allowing for people of different political philosophies to live under the rules of their choice? Yes, No, maybe?
(for/against)
libertarian:1/0
republican: 0/0
democrat:0/0
independant:1/0
non-voter: 0/0
I'm for it only because I think the current system does allow for it. I think even if it was simply the Country of Texas or the Country of California; most of the "former 50 united states" would still be exactly as they are now, you'd have a few that might have a different system though.
Realistically though, you'd never see support for it in the US. As much division as there is at times in the US, conceiving of breaking up the states just wouldn't sit well with 90% of the populace would be my guess.
nadiatims wrote:
I'm sure it doesn't stop you from voting and though.
Well, I'd obviously judge candidates based on the things that I know something about...
But actually, no, I don't vote. I don't like the way campaigns are run and the way the politicians handle them, so I don't vote. There were a couple of guys in the last 8 years that I might have voted for in the presidential election if they had become the candidate, since I thought they were actually being someone honest, but ultimately they didn't.
Last edited by Tzadeck (2012 September 27, 6:52 pm)
Thoughts of secession to most Americans might as well be treason. The breaking up of the Union is something that our country raveled with in the bloodiest war in our history, and the country was greatly wounded for many decades following it. I've been in a history course about the time period from the Civil War and onward and it builds upon the historical reasoning for this mindset. Only foreigners would ever innocently conceive of the United States being separated. Remember that America was once referred to before the Civil War by most Americans as "these United States". Back then the principal of states' rights and state sovereignty was so powerful that each state was viewed as its own micro-country. However, ever since the Gilded Age America has always more or less been one of the most integrated societies on Earth. If you think otherwise, you have not studied history.
90% of the population agreeing with the unified state of America would be taken as an insult to most Americans because most would consider that meaning 1 out of 10 people is an anarchist. There are movements occasionally to split up states and add states, but that is a different issue. That issue actually follows the republican principals by which this country was founded on, even though it took much longer for this right to be established for everyone. With more states that allow for the proper representation of like minded communities, you can prevent the gerrymandering that happens so much in today's politics by state legislators during redistricting. For instance, the overwhelming Conservative countries of South and West California have petitioned to be a different state. It's never going to happen, but these communities' voices are diluted from even state politics because of district lines. Whether you agree with these people are not, you would agree that any group, whether it be on political or racial grounds, being diluted like this by gerrymandering is wrong.
My state Texas was accused of gerrymandering and was sent to the Supreme Court but the lines drawn up by the Republican state Senate was upheld. Now, I personally believe that there should have been a compromise between the two maps proposed because I do know of areas with high black or Hispanic communities, and I know that their vote is often split up into smaller pieces. However, there are enough Democrats and Independents in the Senate to prevent the process from being totally partisan. One of my teachers from high school is actually a life-long friend of Representative King, who has his office in the town that I grew up in, and I know that there is no evil intent like the people throwing up the lawsuit claimed. This problem, though, is far from going away in American politics.
Now, to put one thing concerning Romney vs. Obama, I am tired of people saying Romney wants to give tax breaks to the rich. The word "conservative" might as well mean "status quo". However, I heard today from Paul Ryan, is vice presidential candidate, say that, in agreement with the Democrats, want to close the many loopholes that the big corporations and top 1% use to make tons of their income exempt from taxes. This, of course, would raise tax receipts, which Democrats want to use to fund important yet very expensive projects.
I don't know of any Republican that fundamental disagrees that the social projects that Democrats champion are wrong or immoral. Many agree with the idea but don't believe it is the government's responsibility to be in the business of conducting such activity. This is in nature very libertarian, but this part of the party is rather small. However, there are some libertarian ideas that are bipartisan.
Like I've said earlier, Republicans, to a lesser degree than libertarians and to a larger degree than Democrats, want to get rid of regulations that do indeed stifle small business and average Americans. For those that affect larger corporations, both sides have admitted that there are indeed things that need to be reformed. It is the method of reform where the parties strongly disagree. This, though, can only be fixed via compromise, and I don't think that Obama has lived up to his promise of bringing together the country and destroying partisanship. If anything, he has helped worsen the political divide in America.
That is all. I am a registered Republican, but I do want to make clear that I almost entirely disagree with my party's platform on social issues, except abortion, which due to religious beliefs, but gays being able to marry does not give me more money in my wallet. Although I have very close gay friends and wish that they could marry their partners and be happy as they please, they would have no chance if they lived in other countries, and there are indeed states where it is legalized. Technically, the issue has already been solved by the Supreme Court, which in a case over biracial marriage from the 60s, basically wrote a ruling so vague that it prohibited discrimination in the marriage of individuals. So, for states like mine that have statues against it are braking judicial precedent and if any gay couple had a brain and knew the law they should try to get married in one of these such states and have it challenged with this and claim that the state law is unconstitutional and already ruled against by the Court.
That would then take "gay rights" essentially off the table for both parties to use. Romney is not personally in support of "gay marriage" because of his Christian dogma, but that doesn't make him a bigot either. Many good willed Christians believe the same way, but not all Christians believe that it is immoral. Many simply see the definition as "man + woman as one", and this is the definition used by most societies on Earth. What I would propose, rather, that a new word be coined for this union. This union should have all the federal recognition and benefits as a heterosexual marriage and should be recognized where ever they travel in the US. Due to other precedent, I believe that because gay couples that are married can go to other states after they have married that this in essence shows the recognition of the relationship by the state they reside. State laws that apply to only state residents for things such as taxation, property, education, etc. travel with people if they cross borders to another state. So, the state of Texas would have to recognize that you have a mortgage in your name in say Kansas, and you if found to be late on a payment must pay even though you are not in Kansas. Likewise, if you are married in Massachusetts and you and your spouse move to Alabama, the state must recognize your marriage and you are entitled to any benefits of your marriage while in that state. So, the fact that states like Alabama do not recognize this right for their own citizens but does for other citizens of the nation, which both citizens are above all citizens of America, is sheer duplicity.
I don't think that as commander in chief that either Obama or Romney will move for any legislation that even bother with social issues. With Romney's track record in Massachusetts, I don't believe him that he would sign amendments for the definition of marriage as man + woman. I think he just wouldn't sign it.
That's all for now.
imabi wrote:
Although I have very close gay friends and wish that they could marry their partners and be happy as they please, they would have no chance if they lived in other countries...
Except that gay marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, and (by region) Mexico. There are also other countries where it's unclear (for example, they have civil partnerships with exactly the same rights as marriage, or it's legally not clear), and something like five countries that are expected to legalize gay marriage in the next ten years.
Soooo, what are you talking about?
Last edited by Tzadeck (2012 September 27, 8:30 pm)
imabi wrote:
90% of the population agreeing with the unified state of America would be taken as an insult to most Americans because most would consider that meaning 1 out of 10 people is an anarchist.
Speaking as an American and seeing the way the sides have polarized. I don't see why it would be hard for some to swallow that 1 in 10 Americans wouldn't be considering something like that. If you think to apply that to every part of the country though I think you'll find its not even distributed. As you said yourself, its an idea in the rhetoric of many of the southern strong conservative states. I would think that most liberals would not be keen to the idea. So you can't think to go up to New York and walk up to 10 people and ask "Would you like to dissolve the United State?" and get one person to say "Yes." You could probably go to Georgia or Texas, and walk down the street and ask people and get 4-5 people out of 10 that might say yes.
Now, to put one thing concerning Romney vs. Obama, I am tired of people saying Romney wants to give tax breaks to the rich. The word "conservative" might as well mean "status quo".
The word "Republican" and the word "Conservative" don't necessarily have to fall into the same sphere. The rhetoric that Republicans push, is one of tax cuts. It should also be pointed out that month(s) ago that Romney talked a bit about the economic plan he had, and when the figures were run by multiple independent groups everyone saw the same thing; effective tax cuts (ie: The tax bracket might rise, but after you count everything in, the avg. upper bracket gets taxed less than now) to the rich and effective tax rises for lower/mid brackets.
I don't know of any Republican that fundamental disagrees that the social projects that Democrats champion are wrong or immoral.
If they came out and said that, it'd be the equivalent of political suicide. A significant chunk of the GOP voter base relies on these social projects. Hence why Romney/Ryan/GOP are tiptoeing around trying to figure out ways to privatize without immediately cutting them from the program.
Many agree with the idea but don't believe it is the government's responsibility to be in the business of conducting such activity.
Going out on a limb here, but I suspect very few Dems would believe it would be a great idea to privatize core programs like Food stamps and Medicare/Medicaid.
want to get rid of regulations that do indeed stifle small business and average Americans.
More often than not though, "small business" is GOP code speak for "large corporations." Especially since most of the time the definition is focused "how many people are employed" and not "how much money do you pull in." As a result, many bills that are suppose to be "small business" equally affect multi-million dollar enterprises. "Small business" is thrown around because it makes people think of small shops in their town or a mom-and-pop restaurant or grocer; ie: the underdog.
This, though, can only be fixed via compromise, and I don't think that Obama has lived up to his promise of bringing together the country and destroying partisanship. If anything, he has helped worsen the political divide in America.
You do realize that during the first 3-4 months that Obama was in office that the Democrats held almost the entire congress. They were filibuster proof near enough in the Senate. And yet nothing got done because he was interested in trying to bring the other side in and try and be bipartisan and all it got him was no headway. Then the Tea Party faction showed up in the Republicans and many came out and stated flatly that they would not pass anything of the Democrats, period. There has hardly been any compromise in congress over the huge issues. I'd argue the most compromise that has came out of the congress to date has been the past budget bill that passed that included dead-man switches which cut from each party's pet programs. Dems agreed that autocuts to social programs were ok so long as Reps okayed autocuts to defense spending if they didn't both come to a budget agreement...and of course they didn't and the clock is ticking down on those cuts becoming active. They go active after the election.
You get the sentiments secession all wrong in Texas. i don't think almost any rational person down here would tolerate hearing the US falling apart. The South is notorious for being the cause of the Civil War, but many of us have grown up in this generation being ashamed of this fact.
I am well aware that the terms conservative and republican don't go hand in hand. After all, I consider myself a republican but not a conservative, especially on the social issues. So, don't get me wrong.
When Republicans taut "privatization" around, they won't replace the entire system with it, but they allow people to opt into it, and for a lot of people, this would be very advantageous. It would provide coverage under these programs that actually need it while supported simillarly.
Saying that Republicans think small business equates to big corporations is bull shit. 250000, Obama's definition of where rich begins, can't help you higher many people. Republicans, though, on the one hand, are known for being very supportive of capatilism. However, in the Clinton administration, the reason why there was so much success was because of the lowering of the capital gains tax, which flooded the government with a big surplus in tax receipt. Whether we like how businessmen are gready or not really doesn't matter. All we know is that we like the benefits of a bustling economy, and if that means having go with the way of the flow, sobeit. I don't think it is smart policy to want to raise taxes on any bracket while the economy is still hurting, and I even heard Clinton say this himself. Essentially, if Republicans close the loopholes like they say the want to, that would be a tax increase on the wealthy like everyone wants.
Interested in getting the other party involved? That's bull shit to the extreme. Obama had no intensions of letting in conservatives/Republicans into the discussion on health care. Much of the legislation was made behind closed doors to Republicans. There was no need for compromise when they had the majority like you said. That legislation was passed very quickly without letting even the indepedents in the country have their opinion. That's what gave the Republicans the House in 2010 because so many people were pissed about the process. Even some Democrats during their reelection bids shunned away from the process because they wanted to keep their seats, Missouri being a prime example.
The Democrats had since 2006 to do whatever they wanted to in Congress and they did what they wanted to achieve just in time before the political pendelum swayed the other direction. Saying that they were nice about it is just not stating the facts. There were indeed meetings at the White House with Bainer and Obama after 2010 elections, but nothing was ever conceaded.
I see Obama as just another politician. He comes from the very corrupt Chicago political culture where anything is ok to get your way, and I highly doubt he went into office thinking that he could coerce the other side to do what HE wanted done. He had the votes so it didn't matter.
The tax system in America is already quite progressive. The rates began during the Progressive Era. To say that America has a regressive tax rate is not true. The only taxes regressive in nature are sales taxes. The rich pay a huge majority of the taxes in this country. You also need to discern what exactly is being taxed? Is it their actual salary income? Then, they are payed at a higher rate than a middle class person. Is it from investments? Then, they get taxed the 14% like Romney. But, this is actually double taxation.
How much should any person keep out of every dollar they earn? It has been a fundamental question that no one has been wanting to answer for the last century. If you're poor, you would say 99 if not 100 cents of the dollar. If you're border line, you might like 90 but you know some of it's going away. If you're middle class you might think 85 is fair, but suddenly for rich people some think 20 cents out of a dollar is enough. This, though, makes taxing theft. It prevents these very successful people from doing any good with their money. Many people in America donate their moneys to charities, create foundations, and do many other philanthropic causes. If we had the tax system people want now in place when the actual greatest divide in the country in classes existed, which was at the turn of the 20th century, then we would have very little of the great things that came from contributions from men like Carnegie.
For a rich person, I think they should be able to keep at least 60 cents of every dollar they earn. Though they still have a shit load of money, that money is not going to go with them when they day, so it does end up benefiting society some way. So, I think the argument that rich people in general don't pay their fair share is bogus because, again, many pay up aside from taxes.
imabi wrote:
Saying that Republicans think small business equates to big corporations is bull shit. 250000, Obama's definition of where rich begins, can't help you higher many people.
Huh? I think you missed vix's point. When republicans say things like "we need to support small business," that's their Orwellian, message-friendly code for "we need to support giant corporations."
How much should any person keep out of every dollar they earn? It has been a fundamental question that no one has been wanting to answer for the last century. If you're poor, you would say 99 if not 100 cents of the dollar. If you're border line, you might like 90 but you know some of it's going away. If you're middle class you might think 85 is fair, but suddenly for rich people some think 20 cents out of a dollar is enough.
Who's honestly proposing an 80% tax rate for the rich? It would be nice if they paid the ~20% they're supposed to instead of creating ways to pay a lower rate than middle class Americans.
Then, they get taxed the 14% like Romney. But, this is actually double taxation.
How is it double taxation? If you invest $100 million and it grows into $110 million, then you have $10 million in income. Taxing that new $10 million is not double taxation.
Essentially, if Republicans close the loopholes like they say the want to, that would be a tax increase on the wealthy like everyone wants.
If you think Romney has any interest in making the effective tax rate higher for the rich, then you will have to pardon me when I say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... HA.
He and his company Bane capital were some of the main proponents of lobbying to get the capital gains tax lowered in the first place. And then he acts like his absurdly low tax rate is some fluke that has nothing to do with him.
For a rich person, I think they should be able to keep at least 60 cents of every dollar they earn. Though they still have a shit load of money, that money is not going to go with them when they day, so it does end up benefiting society some way.
When they die, it will be passed on to their children.
Last edited by JimmySeal (2012 September 28, 12:28 am)
Actually the richest people in the US are also big on philanthropy. And if the Gates-Buffet giving pledge thing catches on then it could get pretty crazy.
(I really like Bill Gates)
Perhaps a bit of a tangent off the main tax discussions here, but likely directly relevant to other members of the forums:
I would hazard a guess that most US citizens working in Japan (and likely other countries, depending on what sort of arrangements those countries have with the US) are paying no US federal taxes. However, those of us living here very nearly ended up with a form of double taxation.
If I recall correctly (it's some time since I've read of this, and I haven't looked it up to refresh my memory) Bush (Jr.) wanted to tax all income being made by US citizens abroad. Currently (unless it's changed since last I checked), we are exempt on income up to $80,000 per year or so (I don't make anywhere near that much), after which we would have to pay some US tax as well. This would have created a true double tax for that small number who are working overseas and paying taxes where they live. Imagine living in Japan on the typical English teacher wage and paying both Japanese and US taxes on that income. There would barely have been enough left over to pay for food and rent, if even enough left over for that.
imabi wrote:
You get the sentiments secession all wrong in Texas. i don't think almost any rational person down here would tolerate hearing the US falling apart. The South is notorious for being the cause of the Civil War, but many of us have grown up in this generation being ashamed of this fact.
The young are more progressing than the old and generally aren't in favor of such radiacal stuff. But I bet if you phrased the question for secession from the US with the right message and words, you could get people to say yes and you would get it more in the south than anywhere else. There are a lot of people that think the rest of the country is trying to hold them down, destroy their way of life, take their money, and kick their religion out; and the government is in on the plan. You might not think this way because you are smarter than most, but I have heard it, and enough that I still am shocked to hear people talking about wanting to return to the confederate days.
When Republicans taut "privatization" around, they won't replace the entire system with it, but they allow people to opt into it, and for a lot of people, this would be very advantageous. It would provide coverage under these programs that actually need it while supported simillarly.
I've heard Ryan's plan on healthcare and my personal opinion on it is that they are trying to do away with the government involvement via "boiling frog syndrome." They'll get some people in on it, and if they get enough then they'll use it as an excuse to force the remainder in and government side. Then the private side can slowly strangle different sectors "because its too costly on the whole." It'd happen over a decade or two.
Saying that Republicans think small business equates to big corporations is bull shit. 250000, Obama's definition of where rich begins, can't help you higher many people.
What?
1) As JimmySeal said, what I meant was. When Reps. talk about "small business" they are using it as a cover to aid large corporations. Because more people (read: Independents) are likely to fall in line with the message compared to if Reps. were saying "Ooooh, the poor corporations, we need to cut their taxes more so they can hire more."
2) Unless Obama is defining "small business" as some income figure or something, and in that case please show me a link; I have no idea what you are talking about. Example, under the Small Business Association (SBA) "small business" is companies with less than 250 employees.
Interested in getting the other party involved? That's bull shit to the extreme. Obama had no intensions of letting in conservatives/Republicans into the discussion on health care. Much of the legislation was made behind closed doors to Republicans.
Huh? I did a quick google just to make sure my memory wasn't foggy on this one and sure enough.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … e-reform-/
It sounds like a lot of the reform was quite bipartisian. In fact, it HAD to be because the Dems. no longer had majority status in congress to shove through whatever they want. Your memory must be really short, because the BIG thing that Obama wanted on that bill was the "Single player" provider, ie: universal health care, but the Republicans bucked and howlered over it and it never made it through. What eventually ended up passing through the Congress was gimp legged bill that could barely be considered "health care reform" compared to most other countries. The only good thing to really come out of it was the "no longer denied for prior conditions" thing and even that barely really does much when you consider that now people have to get insurance, which is once again a win-win for the corps.
My original point was. When the president won in 2008, a lot of Dems. came in on his win. They had near fillibuster proof Senate if you count 1-2 independents, and they had majority in the House as well. This went on for at least a session (Fake Edit: It might have been up till 2010 actually) I believe, before there were more elections and thinks evened back out. During this time, as far as I can recall, nothing of any major change went through the congress and passed the presidents desk because they were so caught up on trying to make sure Reps. were ok with stuff as well.
The Democrats had since 2006 to do whatever they wanted to in Congress and they did what they wanted to achieve just in time before the political pendelum swayed the other direction.
2006-2008 was a Rep. president so the Reps had the option to veto anything that went through.
Saying that they were nice about it is just not stating the facts.
Unless you have some good examples of the "facts". All I can say is, I'm not sure what you expect. How 'nice' did they have to be? Did they have to be "Ok GOP, just write everything up and we'll just say Yes!" to pass the "be nice" line?
It prevents these very successful people from doing any good with their money.
This is a go-to statement for many on the right. The whole "If we cut more taxes on the upper class, and let the rich keep more of their money then they'll make more jobs." In other words, Reagonomics aka "The Trickle Down Effect." Which I think is pretty clear that it doesn't work. If you want to equate "do good things" to charity and philanthropy, then fine, but that's not what most of the Republican rhetoric is saying or even hinting at.
that money is not going to go with them when they die, so it does end up benefiting society some way.
As was mentioned, much of it is inherited/passed on, some of that inheritance is taxed. Which again, many on the right have been fighting to remove and decrease inheritance tax. Many have found unique ways to transfer the money on without getting most of it taxed.
vix86 wrote:
Saying that Republicans think small business equates to big corporations is bull shit. 250000, Obama's definition of where rich begins, can't help you higher many people.
2) Unless Obama is defining "small business" as some income figure or something, and in that case please show me a link; I have no idea what you are talking about. Example, under the Small Business Association (SBA) "small business" is companies with less than 250 employees.
I think I can help you with that one. imabi is parroting a republican talking point without having any idea what he's talking about.
Repubs like to point out that if we raise taxes on people earning over $250,000 a year (as a lot of people are talking about doing) then this will affect small businesses because small business profits are taxed as part of the business owner's income.
What they conveniently neglect to mention is that money that's reinvested into the company (e.g. to build its infrastructure or pay employees) doesn't count towards this figure, so except for businesses that are hoarding their profits or paying their owner a pretty large salary, a tax increase on high earners shouldn't hurt small businesses too much.
Zgarbas wrote:
Actually the richest people in the US are also big on philanthropy. And if the Gates-Buffet giving pledge thing catches on then it could get pretty crazy.
(I really like Bill Gates)
There are philanthropes. Even among the rich. But to say that the richest people in the US as a group loves their brethren? If they do, they seem to be pretty bad at converting that love into any greater action, judging by these two graphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_po … meline.gif
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-ga … p;end=2008
If those trends change all of a sudden thanks to recent increases in philanthropy, great! But going by the richest people's track record, I'd say that doesn't seem very likely.
(thanks for the second link, vix)
Surreal wrote:
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-ga … p;end=2008
Looks like rich people are doing pretty well.
How much money do they need before they start doing that job creation they supposedly do?
Last edited by JimmySeal (2012 September 28, 4:44 am)
bump...
If possible could you please answer the survey?
Would you be for or against the dissolution of your country's counties/states/etc allowing for people of different political philosophies to live under the rules of their choice? Yes, No, maybe?
(for/against)
libertarian:1/0
republican: 0/0
democrat:0/0
independant:1/0
non-voter: 0/0
currently only myself and one other user have voted.
What do you think that the information about the extremely non-random sample (even as a sample of koohii or koohii/喫茶店 users) that would answer your "survey" would tell you exactly? What purpose does it serve?
Surreal wrote:
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1985&end=2008
Economic right wingers should come with this taped to them like those warning labels on tobacco products.
Last edited by IceCream (2012 September 28, 2:15 pm)
Hahaha, well I think the other graph should be used by the political reformation movement in the US, ie those who want 'vote spill-over' to be implemented, etc. Like, "50 years of lost promises from both sides - it's time for real alternatives"
(and again, the stateofworkingamerica link was provided by vix86, so all credit goes to him)
IceCream wrote:
Surreal wrote:
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1985&end=2008
Economic right wingers should come with this taped to them like those warning labels on tobacco products.
@IceCream and others: Excuse me, but not all members of this forum are marxist haters who believe that the economic crises are due to "scumbag banker's greed".
Believe it or not "economic right wingers" may find your posts in general quite offensive, demeaning and insulting. Be aware that **some** people (including myself) who learn Japanese do work in the banking field.
I think you should tone down the rhetoric and learn something about the real world. I am also sure that the forum members who are from Eastern Europe and who have suffered under the yoke of Marxist dictatorships are quite offended by your Marxist rhetoric.
I was tempted to just ignore this thread in this otherwise useful forum I think it may be time to close it as non-related to learning Japanese.
Last edited by louischa (2012 September 28, 3:01 pm)
@louischa
ハイタッチ
wow, you sound angry.
You are welcome to join the debate if you want to... i'm not stopping you.
What do you "believe" that the econimic crisis was about then? (I was talking about the 2008 banking crisis btw?!).
Discussing Marxist interpretations of capitalism is a loooooooooooooong way from becoming an apologist for communist dicatorships. They are incredibly different things.
"Learn something about the real world". What exactly is it that i should learn?
Instead of getting all offended, you could join in the discussion yknow... or you could just ignore the thread. Up to you. I don't mind particularly either way.
louischa wrote:
IceCream wrote:
Surreal wrote:
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1985&end=2008
Economic right wingers should come with this taped to them like those warning labels on tobacco products.
@IceCream and others: Excuse me, but not all members of this forum are marxist haters who believe that the economic crises are due to "scumbag banker's greed".
Believe it or not "economic right wingers" may find your posts in general quite offensive, demeaning and insulting. Be aware that **some** people (including myself) who learn Japanese do work in the banking field.
I think you should tone down the rhetoric and learn something about the real world. I am also sure that the forum members who are from Eastern Europe and who have suffered under the yoke of Marxist dictatorships are quite offended by your Marxist rhetoric.
I was tempted to just ignore this thread in this otherwise useful forum I think it may be time to close it as non-related to learning Japanese.
As has been said before "喫茶店 (Koohii Lounge)
Take a break and enjoy insanely off topic discussions."
Moreover, dismissing arguments because of their putative historical affiliation with some movement is about as intellectually honest as using ad hominem. Saying "I am offended! Stop saying that!" isn't much of a criticism or argument or anything other than a general voicing of distress either.
Lastly, have you ever considered that some countries, particularly in the Middle East, can be said to have suffered and still be suffering "under the yoke of capitalist democracies"? It's probably the kind of stuff we'd hear all the time if Soviet had come out on top after the Cold War. Of course, that's not a good argument to disqualify capitalism and/or democracy entirely, just as the vice versa is not a good reason to disqualify marxism and/or dictatorship entirely. (besides, it seems to me that historians generally agree on that Marx himself would not have agreed with the aforementioned "Marxists"' interpretations of his works so one might argue about how accurate it is to call them "Marxists" to begin with)
Surreal wrote:
besides, it seems to me that historians generally agree on that Marx himself would not have agreed with the aforementioned "Marxists"' interpretations of his works so one might argue about how accurate it is to call them "Marxists" to begin with
This. Marx wouldn't have called any of the communist governments "Marxist". A lot of Marx's work was simply a critique of capitalism in the context of history. At the very least, you're not going to find a place in Marx where he advocates that the government should act like totalitarian idiots, try to make up economics as they please, persecute their own citizens, or do any of the other crazy things communist governments have tried to do.
If anyone wants to engage with the actual ideas i've brought up and argue them out, i'd be happy to. But if you're genuinely offended by the type of things i'm writing, i suspect it may have more to do with you than it has to do with me.
Last edited by IceCream (2012 September 28, 6:12 pm)
Surreal wrote:
What do you think that the information about the extremely non-random sample (even as a sample of koohii or koohii/喫茶店 users) that would answer your "survey" would tell you exactly? What purpose does it serve?
I just wanted to see how/if the answer divides along political lines. Anyway it shouldn't matter what my purpose is. My purpose shouldn't effect how you answer the question. Anyway, if you don't want to answer that's fine, but i don't really see any reason not to.
so...
Would you be for or against the dissolution of your country's counties/states/etc allowing for people of different political philosophies to live under the rules of their choice? Yes, No, maybe?
(for/against)
libertarian:1/0
republican: 0/0
democrat:0/0
independant:1/0
non-voter: 0/0
Icecream wrote:
At the very least, you're not going to find a place in Marx where he advocates that the government should act like totalitarian idiots, try to make up economics as they please, persecute their own citizens, or do any of the other crazy things communist governments have tried to do.
How on earth do you achieve communism without being totalitarian? What do you do when people disagree with their assets being collectivized? What if you disagree with the central powers' decisions regarding the allocation of resources?
Hyperborea, is there some reason you're trying to sabotage my survey..?