hizgeorgiapeach
Posts: 1672
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stella41b quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach Define what you personally percieve as "right wing" please. Myself, I get my concept of Personal Responcibility from experience, logic, and philosophy. On a very personal level I've seen what happens when someone Does take personal responcibility for their actions and their life - and what happens when they Don't. What has personal responsibility got to do with a political ideology? You make a generalisation here. I don't quite see a connection because for me personal responsibility is something individual. The comment in your post that I was specifically referencing gave the distinct impression that you consider Personal Responcibility to be something only (or at least primarily) ascribed to "right wingers." That being the case, I would like to know your definition of "right winger" as a point of reference. quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach Then again, unlike the vast majority of the politically active americans on these forums, I'm firmly set against all of the career politicians who are currently running for this nation's highest elected office. Okay. But who or what are you for? Less government overall; strictly enforced term limits at ALL levels of government which are such that they preclude career politicians, cutting of the federal budget - all programs, not just a few - until it is within the constrained limits of what is actually taken in; a 10 to 12 % flat tax rate across the board with absolutely zero loopholes or exceptions; imposed severe financial penalties on companies that decide to "outsource" stripping folks in this country of jobs that get sent overseas (especially if they then expect to turn around and sell their products to the very people that they've stripped of an income!); social welfare would become once again the responcibility of the Chuch (religious organizations) rather than a secular matter - at least then they'd have something useful and productive to do, rather than thinking to urge legislation of other folks' morality; repeal of any and all laws or regulations on the books which unconstitutional in content or intent; decreasing the military by a minimum of half and bringing home all troops stationed abroad where they absolutely don't belong; a complete end to foreign aid; calling due all foreign debt; removal of "diplomatic immunity" for things which would incure a fine from anyone who actually lives here; requiring the UN to pay a fair rent on the building it is provided or to face eviction from that building. You should get the gist from that list of what I feel should be happening in American politics. quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach As far as that system working in eastern europe for 60 years. Some form of capitalism and a free market have worked in THIS country for 200 + years. Show me a socialist or communist system which has been running sucessfully for that long - and I don't mean a country which became that late in the game, but which has truely opperated under socialist or communist philosophy non-stop for 200+ years. You might have to wait as you see Marx and Engels didn't work it out until quite late into the 19th century. So here you think older is better? Oh and that capitalism and free market economy has been working for everybody, right? What was the Depression then? People stopped telling jokes and laughing or something? Oh I see, now I get you, the States is changing from being a world superpower to a second rate post-industrial nation (like Canada and most of Western Europe) through choice right? Okay. So how does this compare with the political and economic stability of countries like Libya, Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, just as a few examples? Oh and not to forget Belarus. All societies eventually fall. All superpowers (for their relevant time period in history) eventually become "second rate" as new ones rise. Rome conquored the majority of the known world at it's time - and it wasn't even a "country", it was a city-state within what Became a country. The UK achieved much the same a few hundred years later - and yet it's empire, like that of the Romans, eventually fell. The US has had something similar for quite a while now, by way of being both a financial and military superpower, and now that power is wanning. The difference between the US wanning and the dissolution of the communist system in the old Soviet Union is, in my opinion, evidence of the Initial strength of the sytem coming to an end vs the Initial strength of the system that failed in such a relatively short span of time over the course of human history. If the communist system were all that strong in it's initial phases, then the USSR would not have collapsed within the space of a single lifetime. (I say single lifetime because it lasted well less than 100 years, and the average lifetime these days is around 75 years.) If we're going to talk comparisons, then we have to look at relative lengths of time, and an entity (political unit) which lasts through the course of 15 or 16 generations is significantly stronger in it's foundational roots than one which survives only 2 or 3 generations. I firmly believe that had the US stayed focused on the Constitutional precepts laid out by our founders, we would not yet be wanning - unfortunately, we've grown further and further away from that at an alarmingly increased rate over the past 40 years. In the end, it is simply part of the cycle of life. Entities die, replaced by other entities - whether that be an animal in the forest making way for the next generation, a human, or a civilization. Nothing lasts forever, nor is it meant to do so. Death is often a painful process, and that to is simply a fact of life.
< Message edited by hizgeorgiapeach -- 10/21/2008 6:42:31 AM >
_____________________________
Rhi Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. Essential Scentsations
|