RE: Truth Hurts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Sinergy -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 9:57:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I was simply making the observation that the logical argument that I preceived that Synergy was making, was almost exactly in the same logical format and content I've seen some Christians make when defending the history of Christianity.

I asked him if I had his argument correct, and he said no.

I'm not sure what his logical argument was, therefore, but respect that he knows his own mind and arguments.



I actually took some time to respond as to why my answer was no.

If you would be willing to state what part of my explanation you did not understand, I would be more than happy to clarify it for you.

Sinergy





FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:00:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As I have stated, I am not schooled specifically in Marxism, in the way that juliaoceania is.  My expertise tends to go towards ancient and asian history with emphasis on comparative religion.  Thank you for offering to debate me on this subject, although I find it curious that you challenge me to a debate and not juliaoceania, considering we have both stated our educational backgrounds and expertise.



I'm not sure what there is to "find curious" unless it is a jab at me of some kind.  Just as julia's earlier comments that "I hadn't responded to her".  I'm one person, you are two.  You are the one who posted what I considered a "Christian-like" defense of Marxism, therefore you were the person I directed my comments to on the subject.

If you do not wish to debate the subject, I perfectly understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

So the next step is to examine the theoretical construct and search for a way to reconcile it with what we can prove experimentally.

Not dismiss quantum physics offhand and start from scratch.

Develop a hypothesis. 
Test the hypothesis. 
Arrive at a conclusion. 
Publish one's conclusion to one's peers to allow for them to do the same.


Well, my point on this subject was that the remaining parts of Marxist theory aren't science at all.  It's philosophy.  You can't use the scientific method (for the most part) on a philosophical argument. You can use logical argument, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What is non-sequiter in my mind is the idea that one should throw out an entire economic / political theory developed over 100 years ago because certain principles in it have been found to be incorrect.


ahhh .... why shouldn't you throw out an "entire economic/political theory developed over 100 years ago" if it has been disproved and supersceded by more accurate theories?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

It is a theoretical construct by which one can view a complex system, in this case the interrelationship between politics and economics.  It is not the only theoretical construct, it probably is not even the best one, it does have its uses, however.


It is a theoretical construct of a complex system that is inaccurate and doesn't match reality, based on a hundred years of trying to match reality with the theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I told my kids when they told me Freud was totally wrong, that the beauty of Freud is that many psychological and psychiatric principles were developed by people who set out to disprove Freud.  If Freud did not exist, the research may never have happened.


Now, this I'd agree with.  As I said, both philosophical and political theory has been classified as "pre" and "post" Marx, for good reason.  As an historical theory, it's worthy of understanding, but mainly to point out it's flaws as you attempt to reason to new theories and constructs.

What principles or scientific parts of Marxism do you (or julia) still find valid, worthy of discussion?  Not being confrontational, but curious.

And, if you don't feel comfortable addressing this issue, no hard feelings if you field it to julia.  As I've said, I'm not looking for confrontation, just information and reasoning.

FirmKY





juliaoceania -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:05:35 PM)

Social science is social science... philosophy is a social science, but so is psychology and archaeology and economics.... just thought I would point this out to you..

Marx was an economist and a historian and a political philosopher...

edited for typos




juliaoceania -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:10:25 PM)

 
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm
Karl Marx was born and educated in Prussia, where he fell under the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach and other radical Hegelians. Although he shared Hegel's belief in dialectical structure and historical inevitability, Marx held that the foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of idealistic philosophy.





Sinergy -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:19:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I'm not sure what there is to "find curious" unless it is a jab at me of some kind.  Just as julia's earlier comments that "I hadn't responded to her".  I'm one person, you are two.  You are the one who posted what I considered a "Christian-like" defense of Marxism, therefore you were the person I directed my comments to on the subject.



I said it was not a Christian-like defense of Marxism.

I asked you to clarify your thoughts.

I am still waiting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

So the next step is to examine the theoretical construct and search for a way to reconcile it with what we can prove experimentally.

Not dismiss quantum physics offhand and start from scratch.

Develop a hypothesis. 
Test the hypothesis. 
Arrive at a conclusion. 
Publish one's conclusion to one's peers to allow for them to do the same.

quote:



Well, my point on this subject was that the remaining parts of Marxist theory aren't science at all.  It's philosophy.  You can't use the scientific method (for the most part) on a philosophical argument. You can use logical argument, however.



There we will have to agree to disagree.

While it is more difficult to prove philosophy using the scientific method, Buddhist monks can endure sub-zero temperatures without freezing to death, and the only method they have to do this falls under the general heading of "philosophy."

Perhaps there is a place where philosophy and science meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What is non-sequiter in my mind is the idea that one should throw out an entire economic / political theory developed over 100 years ago because certain principles in it have been found to be incorrect.

quote:



ahhh .... why shouldn't you throw out an "entire economic/political theory developed over 100 years ago" if it has been disproved and supersceded by more accurate theories?




Has it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

It is a theoretical construct by which one can view a complex system, in this case the interrelationship between politics and economics.  It is not the only theoretical construct, it probably is not even the best one, it does have its uses, however.

quote:



It is a theoretical construct of a complex system that is inaccurate and doesn't match reality, based on a hundred years of trying to match reality with the theory.




Care to provide empirical evidence to support this statement?

Communism has not worked in any country it has been stated to be tried in.

On the subject of Marxism, I assume you have you studied what is happening in Argentina?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I told my kids when they told me Freud was totally wrong, that the beauty of Freud is that many psychological and psychiatric principles were developed by people who set out to disprove Freud.  If Freud did not exist, the research may never have happened.

quote:


Now, this I'd agree with.  As I said, both philosophical and political theory has been classified as "pre" and "post" Marx, for good reason.  As an historical theory, it's worthy of understanding, but mainly to point out it's flaws as you attempt to reason to new theories and constructs.

What principles or scientific parts of Marxism do you (or julia) still find valid, worthy of discussion?  Not being confrontational, but curious.

And, if you don't feel comfortable addressing this issue, no hard feelings if you field it to julia.  As I've said, I'm not looking for confrontation, just information and reasoning.




I dont have any hard feelings about Marxism.

I understand that the theoretical constructs and principles he developed are extremely useful to understand how economics and politics tend to dovetail and interrelate to each other.

The primary problem I have with Marxism is what I consider a Henry Ford / B.F. Skinner idea that one human is the same as another human.  Some people want to be elected Dictator and invade Iraq, other people dont.  I tend to think Marxism only works if people are interchangeable cogs.

On the other hand, when I get weary of debating these things with juliaoceania, there is always cheerleader outfits, spankings, and kung fu action grip.

But as I have stated, this is just me and I could be wrong.

Sinergy




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:24:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Social science is social science... philosophy is a social science, but so is psychology and archaeology and economics.... just thought I would point this out to you..

Marx was an economist and a historian and a political philosopher...



Well, you can pretty easily place any subject under the rubric of  "social science".  There is a pretty strong rift between "social sciences" and "hard sciences" as well.  Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define, and yes, I've seen it called "the science of philosophy" but I generally accept this definition of philosophy:

Philosophy can be distinguished from empirical science and religion. The Penguin Encyclopedia  says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e.by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revlation.  Philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments".

There are elements of, and important concepts in economics and the other social sciences for philosophy.  After all, philosophy is the basis for asking many of the questions that the sciences try to answer.

Again, my point is that the scientific parts of Marxism have basically been disproved.  What remains isn't science, but a philosophical point of view, a world-view that may still lead people to conclusions.  But if those conclusions are the same ones that lead Marx and others to the scientific conclusions that have been disproven, then Marxism overall is no longer a useful starting point for philosophical debate.

It still doesn't mean that there aren't some things in Marxism that aren't attractive, or even honorable - but they aren't all that helpful.

FirmKY




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:27:15 PM)

Quick question: What happens after the masses rise up and redistribute everything? I'd think it would just end up the same again in a 100 years, what is to stop it from happening again, or is that the point of the whole thing. 




juliaoceania -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:30:00 PM)

quote:

Again, my point is that the scientific parts of Marxism have basically been disproved


Marx was the first to make a cogent argument that the physical environment that people lived had a direct bearing on their lives. In other words their economic base would shape their ideas about the world.. has this been disproven?... I think not... that is what Materialism is.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:40:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm
Karl Marx was born and educated in Prussia, where he fell under the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach and other radical Hegelians. Although he shared Hegel's belief in dialectical structure and historical inevitability, Marx held that the foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of idealistic philosophy.



This is where my own personal philosophy would differ from Marx, and the point I was making about what I found about cultural materialism.

I don't think that the "foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics".  I think economics is an important, even critical aspect of human society and reality, but not the determinative.

I am also not a believer in historical inevitablity.

I am a believer in the evolutionary makeup of mankind, and the "inevitability" of the human character remaining basically the same.  Doesn't mean that I believe that human character can't change, but it must be a slow, gradual "evolutionary" change over thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, absent some unique circumstances.

FirmKY




popeye1250 -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:41:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As I have stated, I am not schooled specifically in Marxism, in the way that juliaoceania is.  My expertise tends to go towards ancient and asian history with emphasis on comparative religion.  Thank you for offering to debate me on this subject, although I find it curious that you challenge me to a debate and not juliaoceania, considering we have both stated our educational backgrounds and expertise.



I'm not sure what there is to "find curious" unless it is a jab at me of some kind.  Just as julia's earlier comments that "I hadn't responded to her".  I'm one person, you are two.  You are the one who posted what I considered a "Christian-like" defense of Marxism, therefore you were the person I directed my comments to on the subject.

If you do not wish to debate the subject, I perfectly understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

So the next step is to examine the theoretical construct and search for a way to reconcile it with what we can prove experimentally.

Not dismiss quantum physics offhand and start from scratch.

Develop a hypothesis. 
Test the hypothesis. 
Arrive at a conclusion. 
Publish one's conclusion to one's peers to allow for them to do the same.


Well, my point on this subject was that the remaining parts of Marxist theory aren't science at all.  It's philosophy.  You can't use the scientific method (for the most part) on a philosophical argument. You can use logical argument, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What is non-sequiter in my mind is the idea that one should throw out an entire economic / political theory developed over 100 years ago because certain principles in it have been found to be incorrect.


ahhh .... why shouldn't you throw out an "entire economic/political theory developed over 100 years ago" if it has been disproved and supersceded by more accurate theories?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

It is a theoretical construct by which one can view a complex system, in this case the interrelationship between politics and economics.  It is not the only theoretical construct, it probably is not even the best one, it does have its uses, however.


It is a theoretical construct of a complex system that is inaccurate and doesn't match reality, based on a hundred years of trying to match reality with the theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I told my kids when they told me Freud was totally wrong, that the beauty of Freud is that many psychological and psychiatric principles were developed by people who set out to disprove Freud.  If Freud did not exist, the research may never have happened.


Now, this I'd agree with.  As I said, both philosophical and political theory has been classified as "pre" and "post" Marx, for good reason.  As an historical theory, it's worthy of understanding, but mainly to point out it's flaws as you attempt to reason to new theories and constructs.

What principles or scientific parts of Marxism do you (or julia) still find valid, worthy of discussion?  Not being confrontational, but curious.

And, if you don't feel comfortable addressing this issue, no hard feelings if you field it to julia.  As I've said, I'm not looking for confrontation, just information and reasoning.

FirmKY




Firmhand, correct, as an Engineer once told me; "Mathematics is not an "opinion."




juliaoceania -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 10:50:05 PM)

I would recommend a book called Guns Germs and Steel. It takes an interesting look at the history of planet Earth to explain why some have so much and others have so little.

I do not think that the materialism is the end all be all, but I do not believe in ideational arguments to explain why things are the way they are either. I think that both impact and influence, but often the material facts of existence will outweigh what we are thinking...

Speaking in absolutes is a very bad idea... but at the same time one can see trends....Like I said, if you get a chance read Guns Germs and Steel.. it is an excellent book.





FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm not sure what there is to "find curious" unless it is a jab at me of some kind.  Just as julia's earlier comments that "I hadn't responded to her".  I'm one person, you are two.  You are the one who posted what I considered a "Christian-like" defense of Marxism, therefore you were the person I directed my comments to on the subject.



I said it was not a Christian-like defense of Marxism.

I asked you to clarify your thoughts.

I am still waiting.


Sinergy, it's comments like this that I'm sure make others react to you in a less than positive manner at times.

But, to answer your question, I don't think your reply to me, where I asked if my understanding was accurate, was on point at all.  I don't think it even addressed my point, but slipped completely away from it.  But I tried to be diplomatic and extend you the curtesy of accepting the lack of understanding to myself.

If you want to attack it again, I'd be grateful. Attacking me would not be so helpful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
So the next step is to examine the theoretical construct and search for a way to reconcile it with what we can prove experimentally.

Not dismiss quantum physics offhand and start from scratch.

Develop a hypothesis. 
Test the hypothesis. 
Arrive at a conclusion. 
Publish one's conclusion to one's peers to allow for them to do the same.
quote:


Well, my point on this subject was that the remaining parts of Marxist theory aren't science at all.  It's philosophy.  You can't use the scientific method (for the most part) on a philosophical argument. You can use logical argument, however.


There we will have to agree to disagree.

While it is more difficult to prove philosophy using the scientific method, Buddhist monks can endure sub-zero temperatures without freezing to death, and the only method they have to do this falls under the general heading of "philosophy."

Perhaps there is a place where philosophy and science meet.


I'd say the intersection between philosophy, science and religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
What is non-sequiter in my mind is the idea that one should throw out an entire economic / political theory developed over 100 years ago because certain principles in it have been found to be incorrect.
quote:


ahhh .... why shouldn't you throw out an "entire economic/political theory developed over 100 years ago" if it has been disproved and supersceded by more accurate theories?



Has it?


Yes.  Are you making the assertion that Marxist theory, as applied for the last 100+ years has resulted in a state or society in which a "soviet" utopia exists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
It is a theoretical construct by which one can view a complex system, in this case the interrelationship between politics and economics.  It is not the only theoretical construct, it probably is not even the best one, it does have its uses, however.
quote:


It is a theoretical construct of a complex system that is inaccurate and doesn't match reality, based on a hundred years of trying to match reality with the theory.



Care to provide empirical evidence to support this statement?


ahhh ... you are making the original assertion ... but ... sure.  Name me a country in which the application of Marxist economic theory has lead to anything like what Marx predicted?

Anywhere?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Communism has not worked in any country it has been stated to be tried in.

So, you are making a distinction between Communism and Marxism?  Are you saying that the principles of Marx were NOT those that were used, believed and applied in Communist countries?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
On the subject of Marxism, I assume you have you studied what is happening in Argentina?

No, but I'd be interested in your take.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I understand that the theoretical constructs and principles he developed are extremely useful to understand how economics and politics tend to dovetail and interrelate to each other.

The primary problem I have with Marxism is what I consider a Henry Ford / B.F. Skinner idea that one human is the same as another human.  Some people want to be elected Dictator and invade Iraq, other people dont.  I tend to think Marxism only works if people are interchangeable cogs.



I'd heartly agree with your second paragraph.  I strongly disagree with the first paragraph.  I do not agree that his theories are of worth to explain how economics and politics tend to dovetail and interrelate to each other.  I think they are misleading.

FirmKY




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:11:55 PM)

"If you can't measure it, burn it, weigh it, or test it to destruction, it ain't science."  [:D][:D]

FirmKY




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:20:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Again, my point is that the scientific parts of Marxism have basically been disproved


Marx was the first to make a cogent argument that the physical environment that people lived had a direct bearing on their lives. In other words their economic base would shape their ideas about the world.. has this been disproven?... I think not... that is what Materialism is.


julia,

I'd advance the thesis that Marx got it 100% backwards.

It is peoples' ideas of the world, that shape their economic base.

FirmKY




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:36:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Like I said, my thoughts stem from theoretical constructs that use marx.. materialism. Marx has not been completely dismissed. There are other theoretical constructs I use in my work too, but Marx proves enticing when looking at why people exist the way they do. I consider theoretical constructs to be tools, not the end all be all answers to the world,   Gertz and the Post Modernist crowd also have some great ideas and tools.

I will perhaps take a few hours and research some links with some cogent points. I hope you realize that this is stuff I have not written about in a couple of years and I am trying to put it into an academic format.. it is why I kinda stay away from this topic.. it is not something most people are familiar with, and I have studied it for a couple of years already. I am not being snotty or arrogant, but to explain it to the layman in a few lines on a message board would be extremely difficult. I often skip anthropological topics on this board, even ones with glaring discrepancies within the text because the energy to correct some of the things I have read here that are inaccurate would be overwhelming. If you just check out the little wikkpedia has written on the topic of cultural materialism you will see what I mean, and then one would compare and contrast these things to Marx's basic theories.. we are talking lots of academic work, scholarly research... and this is only ONE theoretical construct I have used Marx for... there are others....



I must apologize, Julia, as I just now saw this post.

I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't expect that you'll change my mind.  But I do like to think I have an open mind.  And I am truly interested in your point of view, as it develops.

I enjoy the intellectual give and take of an honest clash of ideas, especially if we can keep the ... well, snotty remarks out of it.  I see that you are doing that, and if I fail to do so, please call me on it.

Often times, people seem to expect a complete, faultless and coherent explanation of every single aspect and part of someone's thoughts, but I've found over the years that mine have changed, and that even the smartest philosopher/economists/scientist doesn't have all the answers, even when publishing their life's work.

So ... at least for me ... while I'll certainly call your attention to areas that we may disagree, I'll try to keep it in the relm of ideas and concepts, and understand that a "work in progress" isn't a bible of ultimate beliefs.

FirmKY




BuxomGoddess321 -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:53:02 PM)

For the past 20 years, I have been deeply involved in two very different activities.  Social work and Accounting.  I have been a group home counselor, a foster mother and a business owner/Accountant.  I have watched children grow up, seeing their bio families live off of taxpayers money, getting high all day, hanging out at the beach, watching Oprah and Jerry Springer, because they "suffer" from the illness of "addiction" or have drank themselves half to death, or have some other self inflicted problem.  Some of these women have given birth to 11 addicted babies, and have no remorse of it. This is typical.  Ask any foster parent or social worker. They get free attorneys, free housing, free food, free therapy, free educations, free job training, free transportation, free medical care, free everything.  I keep tabs on these families, and none have changed their ways despite all the thousands of dollars pumped into them.  I have kept these kids in my home after they turned 18 to try and get them through college at my expense.  They are not interested.  They see the way I "work (my) ass off" and frankly tell me that the way their bio parents live looks a lot more cush.  

All the corporations I have worked for are owned by hard working actively involved people, with fewer then 3 partners and not publicly held.  They employ people.  They pay taxes.  They also support the people here illegally who are flooding the emergency rooms that do not pay for their own health care.  They provide health care to their employees.  I have doctors as clients, and thier malpractice insurance is $85,000 a year.  They deserve to get paid for all those years they were in school learning to take care of you. Some doctors I know are going into other businesses they are so sick of it.  I've been looking for a bookkeeper for over a year, but 75% of the people I schedule for an interview don't even bother to show up.  Hand outs make people lazy and addicted.  Every family I know who has been in the system, their kids stay in the system as adults.  They think it is okay to take money from hard working people.  There needs to be an incentive to get off your ass and work.  Their self esteem is low.  They do poorly in relationships and school.  They are depressed.  They get on drugs.  No matter what kind of good role models you show them, they have already learned they can suck off the system and be lazy and its easier then hard work.

I was very liberal, a bleeding heart when I started doing this.  A Corporation, even a mom and pop one, pays the highest tax rates in the nation.  A self employed person pays almost 16% just in Social Security taxes. An owner of a Corpoation does the same thru double taxation as a business, then again as an individual. Only charities are more scrutinized than Corporations when it comes to bookeeping.  Social Security is what pays these "disabled" people, and it is running out.  The money IS redistributed, and its wrong.  Half of what I earn is taken away.  Like my foster kids said, why should I work my ass off?  I should just get high all day and watch TV.  I have a client with a Tattoo and Piercing shop in an area with a lot of people on public assistance.  He is packed on the first of the month when everyone gets their checks for their so called "neediness".  Your tax dollars hard at work.  The incentive is to be a loser.  We need to let people keep more of what they earn so they can give jobs to those willing to work.  Most of my clients are hiring, and they cannot find people.  Everybody wants something for nothing.  I do not know where all these people came from who feel so entitled to live off my hard earned money.  I struggle financially.  Someone with a job or a Corporation is not "wealthy";  they are, in my 20 years of doing business, honest and hard working.  It is the people the so called "wealth" is being redistributed to that are the problem.

Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.  Not a damn genie in a bottle.  Its not good for us, its not good for them, either.  They would be better people, better parents, forced to face their issues if they had to get up and earn their keep.  Its not about Materialism.  Its about taking responsibility and pride in yourself.  There is nothing wrong with paying for health care.  Doctors deserve to be paid, and paid well.  If people had ANY idea who all these so called desperate, needy people really are they wouldn't be so quick to run to their aid and enable them to create yet another generation of vampires.

Love to hear about theories, its interesting reading.  I deal in reality.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 11:58:18 PM)

Buxom,

"It is peoples' ideas of the world, that shape their economic base."

You're an anti-Marxists. [:D][:D][:D]

FirmKY




BuxomGoddess321 -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/6/2006 1:17:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Buxom,

"It is peoples' ideas of the world, that shape their economic base."

You're an anti-Marxists. [:D][:D][:D]

FirmKY


oh, thank you for clearing that up for me FirmKY.  And here I thought I was pro-dignity   :)   Reading this thread has been very educational....  Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on the subject, its very interesting.




meatcleaver -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/6/2006 2:49:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BuxomGoddess321

Its not about Materialism. 



At first I thought you must be being ironic, especially coming from the most materialistic country in the world. US administrations have made no attempt to disguise that US access to 'material' resources is at the top of its foreign policy objectives. The US has started wars to win, protect and maintain access to other people's material resources.

The USA is not the only country to have done this, this is what the European empires were about. However, it is rather sickening when these countries pretend there is higher motives to their actions such as principled ideals.

Many people are motivated by their ideas of the world, the arts, humanitarianism etc. but when it comes down to the economy, the motivation is material gain. Why else would someone stand on a boring production line for 40 hours a week? Why else would someone want to reduce the amount of people standing on that production line? The main function of modern westerners as a group is to produce material wealth and the bulk of time and effort goes into that endeavour or the endeavour of securing material wealth and resources at the point of a gun.




Level -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/6/2006 3:01:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I am of the opinion that Rush and Pat Robertson define the republican party...


    That's interesting, since both of them are essentially media personalities and not actually elected officials.

     My opinion is that the Dems are defined by Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and that guy from New Orleans with $90,000 in his freezer.


I did not bother responding to this sooner because as a nonpartisan it really does not matter which democrat you shoot down.. but your side has far more people guilty of corruption than the other side... I could make lists, but you know the names.. oh what the hell.. a short list

http://www.republicancorruption.com/


Here are some off the top of my head.... Libby, Rove, Delay, Abamoff... Foley.. on and on and on... laughing

Please do not throw rocks in your glass house.. omg too funny!

Please feel welcome to tear apart any democrat you like.. I have no emotional attachment.


Yeah, both sides are horrible.

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875