3 edits
Originally posted by MerkIf you lived outside the US you might realize that her allies were extremely grateful to her for coming to their aid to defeat the Nazi machine. You can be cynical about the timing of her entry etc but the truth is that gratitude for her mobilization of forces to help overwhelm that tyranny took a lot longer than the 40's 50's 60' and even the 70's and 80's in some quarters to die out. You could actually argue quite successfully I might add that in some very elite quarters that sense of gratitude and loyalty will never die out and there will always be people high placed who will always try to see America's point of view in a situation regardless of a more contemporary more prejudicial view of her actions.
As for your mumbojumbo about Americas previously unassailable position, you're wrong. The only time that was even remotely true was in the years after WWII. America has been being assailed for decades. Long before the Iraq invasion.
A generation of baby boomer critics armed with a general lack of deference or respect for authority or for the sacrifices that went along in the defense of democracy unfortunately has skewed the popular perception of the depth of the bond that ran deep around the world formed between the service personnel who fought side by side and it is that sense of comradeship forged in blood on the battle scarred fields of Europe, Africa and Asia that bonded her allies to her such that they were/are prepared to always give her the benefit of the doubt in the matter of her 'true' intentions in the sphere of her foreign policy objectives and directives.
Whether you reduce that to a better the devil you know kind of dependence or not, to dismiss those who have admired Americas's projection of its white picket fence, mom and apple pie dreaming as insignificant or not able to inspire millions the world over to aspire to that model of democratic mass culture is to severely underestimate the power of the ideas of freedom in lands who were not free during the middle and later years of the 20th century.
As a resident of the US, unfortunately you are maybe too close to her to actually see that what you may dismiss as ordinary in another land or culture could be a very highly valued commodity, that can outlast many years of oppressive self serving policy (on the part of the Americans) before support for "America" as a state of being ever falters.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenYou use vague, ambiguous phrases like "left out in the cold" or "decent living". When asked, you defined the latter in an emotionally charged way which when examined makes no sense. I am having a lot of trouble finding any substance in your posts. All I see is emotional manipulation.
When I say everyone should be guaranteed a decent living, I mean no one
should be left out in the cold without choice. That's the government's
function to protect it's citizens. And if some have a problem functioning in
society such that they're useful, then there are better ways of dealing with
that than to simply leave 'em out in the cold.
I don t debating that. You're debating my choice of words as
for decent living, that's all.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLeft out in the cold = Living on the streets with no hope of a better tomorrow
You use vague, ambiguous phrases like "left out in the cold" or "decent living". When asked, you defined the latter in an emotionally charged way which when examined makes no sense. I am having a lot of trouble finding any substance in your posts. All I see is emotional manipulation.
were it not for the occasional, volunteer helper (when it should be the
government that prevent this from being possible in the first place).
Decent living = Not having to beg for everything, and not having to struggle
for the most basic of needs (roof over your head, food on the table, that
sort of thing).
If I'm still vague to you, then, I don't know what to say. Sometimes, it's like
debating with the Marx brothers in here? 🙄
Originally posted by stockenDo you currently live in the US? Have you ever lived here? I'm just curious where you get all your infomation concerning our society. Fact: The Federal Gov't spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless. They give it to state and local gov'ts to be distributed to the homeless. Fact: most of the homeless are drug addicts and mentally ill who refuse help. A mentally ill person cannot, by law, be sent to an institution unless given a hearing and judged to be harmful to himself or others. The Federal gov't also gives money to charitable orgaizations and religious groups to help the homeless. Fact: We have welfare, food stamps, Fed. funded daycare and Section8 housing.
Left out in the cold = Living on the streets with no hope of a better tomorrow
were it not for the occasional, volunteer helper (when it should be the
government that prevent this from being possible in the first place).
Decent living = Not having to beg for everything, and not having to struggle
for the most basic of needs (roof over your head, foo ...[text shortened]... I don't know what to say. Sometimes, it's like
debating with the Marx brothers in here? 🙄
Surely you must know this. Why do you say the gov't doesn't help? Also, many homeless are eligible for Soc. Sec. disabillity payments if they can't work.
G.
G.
Originally posted by smw6869Enjoyed the whitespace....thanks. ðŸ˜
Do you currently live in the US? Have you ever lived here? I'm just curious where you get all your infomation concerning our society. Fact: The Federal Gov't spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless. They give it to state and local gov'ts to be distributed to the homeless. Fact: most of the homeless are drug addicts and mentally ill who refuse ...[text shortened]...
G.
Originally posted by smw6869Do any of us really know what we're arguing about? I had to go back look
Do you currently live in the US? Have you ever lived here? I'm just curious where you get all your infomation concerning our society. Fact: The Federal Gov't spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless. They give it to state and local gov'ts to be distributed to the homeless. Fact: most of the homeless are drug addicts and mentally ill who refuse ...[text shortened]... many homeless are eligible for Soc. Sec. disabillity payments if they can't work.
G.
see, and it turns out it all started with me saying: "Socialism is the only
ideology that, in theory, guarantees a decent living for everybody".
Then we've argued what decent living is, and now we're arguing whether or
not the US gov. makes sure everyone has a decent living to begin with.
Having used the words so many times in one thread, I'm a bit nauseous
to be honest.
So, decent living (ugh) has been settled and we can agree that in both
the "socialist state" Sweden and in the "Capitalist harbour" US, there are
people lacking it (for whatever reason, personal choice or not).
Now, Sweden's not really all that socialist anymore, and maybe the US
state is a little bit to the left, but the fact remain: Capitalism, in theory,
cannot guarantee a decent living (the way I've described it) for everyone,
whereas the very thing about socialism (whatever version you pick) by
definition should.
But I will gladly admit to have lost this debate, for one simple
reason. In reality, nothing is as cut clear as black and white. The US gov.
does spend money on helping people who's fallen off so to speak. It's
not nearly enough (apparently), but then neither is any country I know of
doing nearly enough on that front. I still think my comment stands:
"Socialism is the only ideology that, in theory, guarantees everyone a
decent living", and I like that idea a lot.
Of course, now that I think of it, it's not really true. Communism is a
more extreme version of socialism, so it too would guarantee an even
division of resources. Ah, but I do recall writing something about how
socialism at the same time allows for individual freedom. Er, which I
suppose communism could do as well.
I'll lay down my blanket of truce now, and if anyone wants a smoke,
there's plenty to go around.
Originally posted by stockenEeeee......don't you just hate tangents !?
Do any of us really know what we're arguing about? I had to go back look
see, and it turns out it all started with me saying: "Socialism is the only
ideology that, in theory, guarantees a decent living for everybody".
Then we've argued what decent living is, and now we're arguing whether or
not the US gov. makes sure everyone has a decent living to ...[text shortened]... ket of truce now, and if anyone wants a smoke,
there's plenty to go around.
I'll have a smoke with you Stocky...🙄...even though I disagree with your opening statement..."Socialism is the only ideology that, in theory, guarantees a decent living for everybody".
IN THEORY Communism is far superior, IMHO...collective goals etc etc...
It's just a shame that it "crashes and burns" as soon as it becomes necessary for an incentive to motivate us selfish humans into taking charge.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zadadka* Puffing the pipe with a assentient nod, wondering if assentient is the proper word to use, but nods assentiently to the use of the word just the same *
Eeeee......don't you just [b]hate tangents !?
I'll have a smoke with you Stocky...🙄...even though I disagree with your opening statement..."Socialism is the only ideology that, in theory, guarantees a decent living for everybody".
IN THEORY Communism is far superior, IMHO...collective goals etc etc...
It's just a shame that it "crashes and burns" ...[text shortened]... s it becomes necessary for an incentive to motivate us selfish humans into taking charge.[/b]
Peace, Zad.
Y
Originally posted by stockenHow did i do that white out thing?
Do any of us really know what we're arguing about? I had to go back look
see, and it turns out it all started with me saying: "Socialism is the only
ideology that, in theory, guarantees a decent living for everybody".
Then we've argued what decent living is, and now we're arguing whether or
not the US gov. makes sure everyone has a decent living to ...[text shortened]... ket of truce now, and if anyone wants a smoke,
there's plenty to go around.
Actually i was responding to your post where you said the US Federal gov't does almost nothing for the homeless.
You are very good at skirting the issue. Get it? Skirting the issue!
Hehehehehe!
What is it that we are smoking?
G.
Originally posted by stockenLeft out in the cold = Living on the streets with no hope of a better tomorrow
Left out in the cold = Living on the streets with no hope of a better tomorrow
were it not for the occasional, volunteer helper (when it should be the
government that prevent this from being possible in the first place).
Decent living = Not having to beg for everything, and not having to struggle
for the most basic of needs (roof over your head, foo ...[text shortened]... I don't know what to say. Sometimes, it's like
debating with the Marx brothers in here? 🙄
Well, there you go again. Nobody in the US has no hope for a better tomorrow. Everyone is capable of improving their lot. This is what I mean about the emotionally charged, but unrealistic definitions.
Decent living = Not having to beg for everything, and not having to struggle
for the most basic of needs (roof over your head, food on the table, that
sort of thing).
Wait - how come you're changing your definition? And it seems to me that we've already determined that government help is equivalent to begging.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoung🙄
[b]Left out in the cold = Living on the streets with no hope of a better tomorrow
Well, there you go again. Nobody in the US has no hope for a better tomorrow. Everyone is capable of improving their lot. This is what I mean about the emotionally charged, but unrealistic definitions.
Decent living = Not having to beg for everything, a ...[text shortened]... to me that we've already determined that government help is equivalent to begging.[/b][/b][/b]
Just smoke the pot already. It will all become clear once you smoke the pot.
Down here, we aaaaall smoke the pot. Geee-har...
2 edits
I can play this game too.
Europeans are robbed by their government in order to bolster the incomes of the lazy.
Robbed means being taxed into submission by the oppressive government and the secret masters who control it.
The lazy means those who recieve government assistance.
See? Now it seems so much different. All we're doing is throwing out emotionally charged phrases. There's no substance.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd I can play your game too. Yadda, yadda, yadda. What's that? yadda?
I can play this game too.
Europeans are robbed by their government in order to bolster the incomes of the lazy.
Robbed means being taxed into submission by the oppressive government and the secret masters who control it.
The lazy means those who recieve government assistance.
See? Now it seems so much different. All we're doing is throwing out emotionally charged phrases. There's no substance.
what're you saying now? I don't get it. Yadda?
I've explained my point of view so many times now, I'm ready to puke. Got
a bag?
Or, better yet, a smoke?
Originally posted by stockenYou're not even trying to get my point. You are being illogical. No, I'm not just pulling that out of my butt - you're guilty of Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy. Instead of using facts like "XX percent of people are below the poverty line as defined by YY" you use "left out in the cold".
And I can play your game too. Yadda, yadda, yadda. What's that? yadda?
what're you saying now? I don't get it. Yadda?
I've explained my point of view so many times now, I'm ready to puke. Got
a bag?
Or, better yet, a smoke?
Why are you being illogical?