Wow!

Corrupt and ignorant are two different things.  There's nothing inappropriate about applying SFR funds towards regulation development because it's specifically allowed.  Since you didn't get that the first time, there's a difference between "not specifically mentioned", and specifically allowed.

$45 million evaluating populations, even more going into hatcheries.

Who does the population evaluation and runs the salmon hatcheries in Alaska?  The Commercial Fishing division.  Where do they determine catch rates from?  Population evaluations.  What's funding three fourths of these activities in those budgets?  The SFR act.

What did you think they said?  Are you expecting there to be a "Regulations" section instead of assuming, logically, that the $300 million in administration covers it?  Maybe you're right and not a dime of the SFR Act revenues are going towards this completely obvious, explicitely listed, and necessary activity.  How the fuck would that be a good thing for sport fishing?

Then again, that would explain why most of the coastal states are utterly fucked and can't tell their asshole from the population levels when it comes to catch rates.

Do you even fish? If not, why am I bothering with you?

And evaluating populations is far from any sort of regulation. Your posts keep getting more and more far fetched the more info I give you. That is because you have to keep changing up your story with your specifics. No SFR funds even go toward the Commercial Fishing Division. Yes, the Sport Fishing Division does regulation. But, the funds they receive from SFR do not go toward it (my initial point). Not sure how else you want me to explain it for you. The Sport Fish Division will help determine what the regulations will be through population evaluations...ie, what size fish are keepers and the daily limits, etc. But, then the money that actually goes towards regulating and enforcing it comes from other sources. I showed you the broken down list of where the money goes.

I guess I will just let you live in your little bubble. And if you don't believe that sport fishing in America isn't better off today than it was decades ago, then you don't have a clue about fishing.

I love to.  I much prefer Salt water to fresh (the fish are tastier and they fight better).

Your other points aside for right now, this one strikes me as the most annoying.

Firstly, what has the political left been doing for the past decade if not being a government watchdog? You can argue how the Patriot Act and the government wiretapping are "socialist" or "liberal" things to do, but the fact is that these liberals and socialists are the only major voices screaming shrilly about the expansion of presidential power during the last administration... and whatever anyone else might say, we're disappointed that Obama has essentially maintained them.

You say that government is dangerous. No argument there, just like anything with power and influence has the potential to be dangerous. That's why the political left and some on the right watch the government ensuring that it gives due process and doesn't curtail civil liberties. So yep.

And the solution you offer is oversight, which is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Secondly, if the government is completely unreliable and, basically, inherently evil, why would you even rely on it to enforce the laws? You can't pick "option C" with an inherently evil and completely unreliable force... that'd be bowing down to evil and chaos. You mean that the police wouldn't put a cigarette in your eye? It's clear during this thread you've never said what you actually mean.

You could have said, "the government is unreliable". You could have said "the government is the source of a lot of evils." Those would have been much more difficult to argue against. Hell, you could have just said, "the government should stay the fuck away from the economy" which I think actually reflects your position. Instead, you've gone for the straw-man point of the government being "evil" by it's nature and completely unreliable.That made things really easy for me.

As much as you'd like to ignore them, there are really good government programs and there are really awful one. When I lived in Spain the government subsidized Madrid metro beat the shit out of any other metro, in America and probably in the world. It was reliable and it was constantly expanding according to public need. On the other hand, EU's agriculture price fixing is a huge waste of food.

Thing is, you've set it up so if I can point out that any government program in fact works, I've alreadly defeated your argument of the government being completely unreliable.

But that isn't the point. My point is that you should say what you actually mean rather than to weaken your own argument by making stupid absolutist statements you can't defend.

Exactly! Which is how the fishing topic started. I gave an example of a government funded program that is a great program that works. Then he comes in and tries to claim that the program is a failure at regulating, when the program doesn't even go towards regulations!

You nailed it on the dot. You can name any government program that works well and his (psychoak's) argument goes right out the door. I touched on that fact in my reply #132. Are there some really bad government programs that are a waste of money? Yes. But there are a ton of programs that the government funds or runs that are very beneficial to society. To claim that government is the root of all evil is just plain flat out wrong and there is no way you can possibly defend that statement without coming off as flatout anarchist.

I'm constantly floored by how some libertarians can spout that kind of rhetoric and still think they are somehow "moderate".

Seriously, holding up Psychoak as an example of a typical libertarian is probably a bad idea. One of my best friends is a libertarian and even he believes in the FDA, and I've never heard such tripe as the "government is evil" out of his mouth.

But there is actually a philosophy called "anarcho-capitalism". It basically endorses a free market with almost no government. Some of the practices are incredibly bizarre... like a law market where you buy and sell actual laws... I have no fucking clue how that is supposed to pan out.

Libertarians have about as much credibility as socialists (and by socialist, I mean the REAL meaning of the word, not the American bastardisation which is thrown around willy-nilly at anyone left of Reagan).

Since you can't seem to accept regulations being made in administrative actions funded by the SFR based on millions in research funded by the SFR as being regulation funded by the SFR, my fishing probably doesn't count as fishing either.  After all, I don't fish for sport, it's fucking boring.  I just like frying the little fuckers up five minutes after I gut them.  You might call it subsistance instead, which obviously wouldn't still be fishing!

The salmon industry in Alaska is doing great!  I can't say so much for the other two states though.  They're still as boned as they were in the seventies because they haven't done shit to rebuild the populations and manage harvests.  Sport fishing a non-commercial fish in a lake or river where no one besides sport fishermen would give a fuck to bother with?  Yeah, that's better than it was thirty years ago.

I find this statement equally annoying.  If this is the most annoying thing I've said, you're so fucked in the head I'd have nightmares just from meeting you.

Is this a joke?  Lets just pretend that Bush was a conservative(I'll try not to die laughing in the process) and the "liberals" have been fighting his expansionist government.  What the fuck have they been doing for the three years they've had control?  Oh right, they've been expanding government at an even faster rate than before...

They spent six years bitching about those evil war mongering republicans spending us into oblivion, muttering on and on about how disastrous tha patriot act was, etcetera etcetera.  It was all bullshit, they just got through wasting over a year with a super majority.  They could have repealed the patriot act any time they wanted to.  Instead, they took us from 10% deficit spending to 40% deficit spending.  Don't give me shit about it being a recession either.  Spending has grown by well over a trillion since they took over the budget process.

Those crazy libertarians are the only ones that actually give a shit about the patriot act, the democrats in office fucking love that shit as long as they're the ones getting to use it.

The political left and some on the right...  I wish I could be this oblivious to anything not in agreement with me.  Are the libertarians the left now or what?  There are far more libertarians than left wingers bitching about the patriot act, always have been.  The libertarians are pretty much the only ones bitching about all the other shit the feds shouldn't have their fingers in.  Who on the left still is?  Code Pink?  Our dear leader sure as hell isn't trying to do anything about it.

Oversight of a colossal fuckup of an organization writing thousand page bills is impossible.  The CBO can't even prove shit when they come out with a review, whoever they're smoking out with the reality check just says it's wrong and they forgot to account for this and that.  They pass their fantastic pile of steaming fecies and call it a day regardless.  You don't have the sixty hours a week it takes to actually learn the shit they're doing to you.  I've tried, it took me a week just to figure out how hosed we were on cattle if the Cap and Trade bill went through.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable

Somehow I'm just not seeing it.  From now on I'll pretend clonmac is right.  The SFR is a shining beacon of properly applied funding, as opposed to being bullshit applied to boating safety, nature education seminars, swamp preservation, etcetera, rarely even applied to the single most destructive force towards sport fishermen that there is, commercial fishermen.  I'll also pretend it's not a direct violation of the Constitution by being not being an enumerated power, the only things the Federal Government are allowed to do.

Is reliable really something you can apply to an entity that fucks up 90% of the time?  Really now, what have the Feds done right in the last decade?  I guess maybe if you were trying to engineer the end of civlization, we've had a fucking fantastic century.  We created a massive, self guided entity with total control over our economic stability, built in crippling tax burdens on future generations to pay the living expenses of the previous, drove health care costs through the roof by providing an artificially high market for them, killed our industrial by trying to protect it while giving the unions supremacy of power...

You probably don't let the little stuff bug you though, it's not like they really caused all that shit.  That's just republican propaganda, never mind them being the cause of half of it.  The current rate of expansion in Medicare for instance, Bush fucked us with that little problem by paying for everyones drugs.  Just remember, paying for preventative care was going to save us billions!

It's funny how you put that.  I particularly love how necessary evil turns into inherently evil so you can come up with something to say.  Shit I've already said as follows:

"Government is dangerous, for any potential benefit you can point to, there are thousands of potential drawbacks, and the benefit wont be there forever."

"Ahh, the fallback crutch of the liberal idiot.  Somehow, law itself magically disappears if you get the fuck out of business.  How does not regulating a particular industry unfairly lead you to believe your local corporation can take over the world?  Do the laws that apply to individuals magically vanish as soon as one forms a company?  Extortion is illegal, bribery is illegal, coercion is illegal.  Congratulations, you just stopped Standard Oil from becoming a monopoly without Anti-trust laws by, of all things, enforcing laws that already existed and had nothing to do with it!"

Previously quoting Madison:  "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

A favorite saying for you liberal hippies is power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Shouldn't you maybe apply it to Uncle too?  They ban safe products.  They tell you how to build, where to build, what to build, who you can pay to build it.  They mandate thousands upon thousands of things that the typical person will never notice, but pays through the nose for in costs passed down through business.  They've built the lawyer industry up to a titanic entity that is currently impervious to any restrictive legislation as it has most of congress bought and paid for.

Are you even aware of the excess legal overhead on our economy?  Stripping the trial lawyers of all the bullshit they've worked into the system would turn around this recession faster than you could see it.  There are a few million six figure salaries in this country dealing with their own red tape that would disappear overnight and go back into things that actually produce something.

Also, I fucked up a lot of quote boxes on the last page, stupidity is a terrible disease.

I'd be more worried by the minor details.  You know, like the EU being where we're at now on a good year?  Only when compared to a collective economic disaster could the fucking Dollar be strengthening on the same day we get a vote to add $1.9 trillion to the debt ceiling so we can pass our $3.8 trillion dollar budget and take the path of economic suicide.

Where do you guys come up with this shit?  I'm serious.  How does this at all make sense to you?  If you buy a car, and the power windows are the only thing working, does that mean the car is reliable?  If everything but the engine works great, would the car be reliable?  Maybe it's just the fucking transmission that's broken...

How can a government be reliable because a few minor programs are working as the collective fuckup reams out your ass every day?  They wouldn't even consider the SFR program real money, it's less than one forty thousandth of the budget.  So sure, we've got pocket change functioning beautifully as they blow two trillion dollars on expanded costs that didn't exist just ten years ago.  It fucking doubled in ten fucking years, half of that just in three.  Catastrophic fuckup with no redeeming qualities might be slight overkill.  Calling it completely unreliable is fucking generous of me.

You find as many beneficial programs as you want too, just remember to lube your ass first.

It's good that it wasn't the point, since there wasn't one.  Water is wet.

Lets see...  Just because libertarians eat babies doesn't mean they aren't moderate.

Someone quote that line and attribute it as something dipshit said for me.  I don't think he'll figure it out, but it's just too entertaining to clear this up.

Agreed,  Ron Paul is a fucking nut for instance.  I'd still love to have 49 of him in the Senate though.  No one else but a crazed libertarian would let him do anything crazy, but he'd stop any more crazy shit from happening and force us back to a reasonable level just by blocking the budget from increasing.

At the risk of ruining my entertainment, I'm a constructionist.  States can do whatever the fuck they want to as long as they don't violate constitutional guarantees of peoples rights.  The Feds on the other hand are limited to shit actually assigned to them.  If you don't like it, amend it.

...and that they would notice if it were taken from them.

WoooooooHoooooooo!!!! You heard him!! He said it, and I quoted it!!   ...and ya, those few bucks that gets taken out as tax from the lures I buy each year really hits me hard. It sucks that millions of dollars in return gets put toward the sport I love....really sucks too that only people who are interested in that sport have to pay...I HATE government!!

Is anyone else confused by the contradictory statement made by psychoak? The state can do whatever the hell they want? I'm pretty sure the state can blow your money away and screw your rights just as easily as the feds can. Yet, you are willing to give them free reign and not the federal government? See, this is where you lose all argumentative leverage with me. Sorry.

You do realize that it will only get worse and worse no matter what stance our government takes on economic intervention, right? Infation plays a big role in how much debt we actually have. And as the dollars value continues to drop, the amount of actual debt we have in "trillions of dollars" will continue to go up. Now, don't get me wrong, I am the first person you'll find who will step up and say that our budget deficit is way too high. But in reality you need to look at spending in terms of a percentage of our GDP. In that regards, we are no worse now than we were in 1950. If we go through a spending freeze, we might actually turn out better in the next decade than we did through the 1950s.

Oh, right. I completely forgot that the President CAN'T veto anything. ...wow...

'Tis the cost of 8 years of doing nothing added up into one lump sum!

Yup, I had absolutely no say when it came to building my house. I think I'll move to Sudan next year.

HA. HA HA.



Sorry but... you're getting really surreal here. Not just this line, but this whole fucking argument. You redefine shit left, right and center... whatever is convenient for your point. Socialist, liberal, nazi, conservative, democrat, republican, environmentalists, whatever. When you say left wingers... to you that's virtually everybody. The whole history ideas shrunk down into "left wing". What can you possibly say about "left wingers" that isn't poisoned by your absolutely insane categorization system that no one fucking uses but you?

And then I remember... saying the nazis were inspired by marx to kill jews is nuts. Saying the nazis are textbook marxists because they killed jews is still nuts. Ergo... you fill in the blank.

I'm getting really, really exhausted of talking with you... I came in for one reason and that was to say that nazis are not socialists. I enjoy rational discussions. I really do. But, it's really fucking clear you're a troll with no interest in actually trying to understand my point, and it's a complete waste of my time talking to you. You can entertain yourself as long as you want by saying red is blue, that the systems we have seen work are dysfunctional, that stable countries we have lived in are unstable.

You left out the bit about "as long as they don't dick over any of your rights in the process."  I'm not confused by it.  It's not contradictory.  It's called "state's rights."

He said he's a strict constructionist (so am I).  All powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people.  Now, does it actually work that way?  Of course not.  But it should.

To the guy who says nazis were not socialists, all I can say is, who the heck knows what all these terms mean nowadays, as they have all become so meaningless and misused, but the word "socialist" was certainly part of their name.  They called their philosophy "national socialism."

While I am sure there are many in the US that use socialist as a perjorative, the sad fact of the matter is that the current democrat administration is very socialistic (note the adjective).  If he had his druthers, I believe he would drop all pretense and just go with Bernie Sanders on all things.  But unfortunately, most democrats are not pure socialists (just varying degrees), so he does not have the power.  But dont kid yourself into thinking that socialistic programs have not been advanced with this administration.  just because the US is not now a socialist country does not mean that is the direction Obama is taking it to.

What do you mean partly?

The republicans even on this forum are soooo far right, they think Hitler is a lefty

No, I included that bit. Normally I would accept that as an argument. But, you might have also missed his past statements he has made about government. Government at any level is still government. And taking that into consideration as well as his past remarks about government, he totally contradicts himself. Let's not forget that states can have just as many screwed up money-wasting programs as the federal government can.

I think he was going for an anarchist leaning there, but I'll take it as it should be interpreted.
There is literally no government ever invented by man that can be considered 'perfect'.

Two reasons for this:
1. The morality of it. Right and wrong are moral constructions that we use in a day to day basis. What we see as right, as good or evil, as politically correct or however the hell else you want to use it, it based on centuries and millenia of idealogical evolution and a societal survival of the fittest. Thus, with this ever changing set of principles, there is no baseline or basis for 'right and wrong' or 'perfectly moral' and such. There is no natural construct that we can measure ourselves against. Thus, no perfect government.
2. This is related to the reason 1. Because of our everchanging moral system and principles of beleifs, we're all pretty much screwed when it comes to equality. What one group thinks is right can be completely different from another group, and so and so forth. Case in point: the beaten-to-death abortion and gay rights shite these days. In that, you can't have a truly perfect government because there will always be someone bitching about how something somewhere violates their personal beleifs.

Christ...not the 'inalienable rights' crap. I swear to god, I'd like to punch out whoever came up with that idea. I think it was Locke. High school history was a long time ago.

Anyhow, there's the one main problem with America. And I'd like to say this is definitely based on experience and anecdotal, I'm american, living in America, etc, all that bull to validfy my points. The main problem with America is our entire sense of complete and utter obligation. Everything's obligated to us. Wealth and whatever we want? Damn straight, give it to us now. Freedom up to and far past the point of excess? Add that to the list, keep the change.

And it's all based off of the arrogance of our awesome founding fathers. They were in the middle of a world wide pissing match with Britain, and they decided to stick it to them by writing down a bunch of trite and completely inefficient crap in our founding documents. Not to mention ripping off some philosphers, but that's another story. The point is, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two incredibly outdated, incredibly old-fashioned documents. The Declaration of Independence, in the first place, was little more than a teen's angsty hate letter to their parents during a temper tantrum. Lookie here guys, we have a RIGHT to all of this, and this, and this, and even some of that! Right to pursue happiness? The hell does that even mean? The constitution, though it did have a few good ideas in there, still reflected the stewing anger and residual hatred in the US, and some of the stuff in it was seriously unessecary, and is causing some problems today.

And it's part of American's inherant sense of obligation that nothing can change. We've gotten all hung up on freedom and American dream and that crap, and now we just can't shake ourselves out of that. Nothing can change in the Constitution because it is the Constitution. It's like the basis of the country and freeeeedom.

A government by the people for the people, as so pompously claimed in our constitution, is definitionally screwed. It's a wonder we've lasted so long if we want to base everything off that. Because, like I said before, people can't get along with each other. We're basically selfish, self-serving, and we put ourselves above others. It's an undeniably efficient survival trait, but in a modern society it's destructive and anarchistic. We can't try to have a perfect society. We can't try to make everyone and everything equal. The government can't pander to us. Like I said, people can't work well with others. Some manage to make do. Most don't.The government needs to be able to slap you in the face and say "Screw you, this is what you need to do for the good of society and the continuation of life and some semblance of social order" when you whine and say that you don't feel like it.

People whine and bitch about executive getting ludicrous payouts as their companies flounder. Can you say, honestly, that you wouldn't do the same thing in their position? Faced with that much money, that much power, you wouldn't dip your hand into the cookie jar one last time, and haul out a handful? If you say you would probably do the saem, thanks for being honest. If you say you wouldn't, stop BSing yourself.

Nothing is unalienable. Nothing is assured. Nothing is promised, we're owed nothing, by anyone, or anything.

To quote Caine: A human life is defined by its relationship with others: by its duty to its species. In the face of this duty, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless. What you call individual rights are merely the cultural fantasy of a failed civilization.

So is there a moral to the ridiculously long, drawn out, disjointed and probably bitchy essay/argument/thing? I guess.

Take what you want from it.

Anyway, despite what it might sound like, I'm generally apolitical. Not a democrat, republican, or any other BS label you come up with. Just some fouled mouthed cynic.

So, yeah.

Cadalancea

Edit: Daaaayum son, I didn't realize how much I wrote there.

Oh, this was still going?  Not going past the first page has it's drawbacks.

Yeah, we'd really notice when the government took away all those loopholes and requirements that exist specifically to employ lawyers.  You have heard that this idiotic country has way beyond the norm for western civilizations, right?  A few hundred billion is pissed down the drain every year in compliance to nonsense.

Work that doesn't produce a good or service is work that doesn't contribute to wealth generation.  Red tape is a drag on productivity.

Your selective vision is truly impressive.  I don't mind though, it's not like wetlands preservation and environmentalist seminars are at the top of my bitch list.

I can see that.  For me to have argumentative leverage with you, there would have to be something other than a void inbetween your ears.

I'm assuming you at least grasp that I'm one of those free market capitalist proponents, right?  It's really, really simple.  We have ONE federal government.  We have FIFTY state governments.  Then of course there are constitutional limitations the states impose on themselves, and thousands of local governments under them.  Would you like power to fall on one entity, fifty entities, or thousands of entities?

Moving to the next city, even state, is a simple job and residence change.  Immigrating to another country?  Not so much.  Even as fucked as we are now, it's still functioning at the state level.  California is fucking screwed, Texas is booming.  People flee California, and move to Texas.  Competition at work.  When the feds do all the fucking up, we have to flee the entire country to get out of the mess.  It's the whole point of decentralized power.

There's also the minor detail of the whole Constitution thing, you know, where it's spelled out in black and white(or tan, animal skin isn't white) that the feds are strictly limited to the expressed powers?  I know, we pretend it's not there these days, but I'm a stickler for that whole limited republic concept.

If it were physically possible, I'd shit bricks over this paragraph.  Honestly!  Are you fucking insane?

Deficit spending, not debt, is nearly 10% of GDP right now.  The federal budget hit 25% of GDP last year.  This isn't 1950, it's 1942.  We're not entering WWIII, this isn't temporary, wartime spending.  We haven't even started the depression yet, let alone come out of it as an industrial juggernaut on top of the world economy.  We're fucked.

We have vaporware for an industrial base, all of the private capital has been gobbled up by government debt, we've strangled free enterprise with massive overhead and red tape from all of our interventionist requirements, and now we're hitting the inflationary period that follows a spending spree paid for by printing money.  You can't call it 1950 just because the debt level is similar, there's nothing to pay it off with.  Spending is nearly twice as high, deficit spending is ten times as high.

Couldn't you at least make an attempt to learn your recent history before trotting out this nonsense?

Yeah, because Bush being a progressive putz that doubled the level of health care spending by the federal government is totally an excuse for the democrats to go on a spending spree that makes the republican fuckups before them look like model citizens.

'Tis the cost of being an economic retard incapable of basic math.  You don't improve an economy through deficit spending, you tank it.  Increasing deficit spending when it tanks just puts it further in the hole. Bush and a republican congress did a stupid, Bush and a democrat congress did an OMFG stupid, Obama and a democrat congress are now going where no man has ever gone before.  He makes Hoover and FDR look like fiscally responsible individuals.  Niether of them were anywhere near this fucking insane and they still turned an above average recession into a decade long depression.

Capital is not printed on a press, it has to be created through actual products, material wealth.  The more capital going into blackhole government spending, the less new capital there is from actual production.  Private enterprise makes a return on investment, NASA is one of very few government programs to do the same.

The failure to grasp this is why Keynes, and all of the idiots to follow his ideas, are damned idiots.  Spending only generates wealth when it's spent on production.  No production, no wealth.

You didn't if you wanted to build in one of the thousands of places residencies aren't allowed.  You did if you wanted to build it below code in any aspects.  You did if you wanted to pay an unlicensed contractor to do it.  Just because you're living in fantasy land and didn't even notice all the excess cost that got piled onto your construction costs because of permits and nonsensical requirements doesn't mean they didn't exist.  Even if you don't mind, there are a few hundred million people in this country.  Are we all supposed to like getting the shaft on things just because you don't mind?

Just in case, you're not trying to use the social spectrum to classify libertarians as economic left wingers to justify your argument, are you?

The current brands of socialism aren't even two centuries old.  The old ideas behind them were never applied to large scale economies.

You take a chart that puts communism and free market capitalism at two ends of a spectrum, a rather appropriate choice, and then define the middle as normal.  The midpoint between no control and total control is half control.  Government control over half of the economy would be more than sufficient to enact various forms of socialism.  Fascists being slightly right of center doesn't mean they resemble capitalists.  The various socialist forms contain many only slightly left of center on that graph, national socialism, which you're still pretending not to see, is slightly right.  How am I redefining shit left, right and center for convenience when they were originally considered economically left wing in their time?  Perhaps you like pretending your warped view of economics is middle of the road or something, but that doesn't mean I'm redefining something when I point out the obvious.  It's still the National Socialist Movement today, as I said, Neo Nazi propoganda is fucking hilarious.

Now, if you actually quoted this, you'd have a point.  Unfortunately, being a lying shitbag doesn't really get you anywhere on a forum thread, where the previously written posts are still there.  It only works in politics, where a complicit media will ignore your frequent reversals and misquotes because they like your leanings.

That's ok though, I enjoy seeing left wing tards lose it.  It's the only thing that makes politics tolerable.  We run through the shitfest till someone finally goes too far, and all the left wing fuckups go nuts over the turn around.

Ok, so Greece is breaking out in riots, France thinks cars burning in the streets is normal, acceptable behavior as it's been happening for years now, and most of Europe isn't far behind with the preposterously massive levels of unemployment among the younger generations leading to all those idle hands.  I guess it's not like you're really unstable though.  Well, ok, you're even closer to the brink than we are.  But really, you wont collapse into chaos any time soon, you've got years before it happens!  Hell, even Greece can hold out for...  Oh, shit...  A few months...

Get out of your insular little bubble in your comparably resource rich country with a microscopic population.  Look at the countries that actually have to produce things to generate wealth, where the comparative growth in beaurocracy already crippled them thirty years ago.  I know it's hard to face reality, but most of Europe is about where California is.  You can hear the flushing sound from a thousand miles away.  The rest of the US isn't far behind either.

Switzerland is fucking badass though.  They make the rest of us look really fucking stupid right now with that unemployment rate down below 5% with the heaviest banking industry dependancy in Europe and few natural resources to exploit.  It's probably got something to do with only having 40% of gdp in debt, and a budget surplus instead of insanely high deficit spending.

Cadalencea, U R wetawded!

You should just come out and say you're a communist.  That and go back to highschool.  Even the pathetic excuse for a history class you'd get now would improve your knowledge.  Blaming the Constitution for socialistic bullshit about some executive getting a big payout after a blatantly unconstitutional intervention into the market gave them the money for it.   The intervention was unconstitutional.  The salary limitations are unconstitutional.  There's nothing even vaguely related to it.  The entitlement programs are all unconstitutional as well, you're entitled to your liberty.  You earn your property.

Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

I know, I'm a dick.

Eeash, where to begin?

I think you missed everything I said.

Okay, one, I never blamed the constitution for socialist bullshit. I may have used the term bullshit, but mostly in relation to the asinine declarations in it. Anyhow, my point was the Constitution itself was a flawed document built on out dated principles no longer applicable in the current world. It's not socialist in the least. Never called it that.

The corporate bailout thing was to prove a point about the inherant self-serving interests in people. Not anything constitutional, not naything socialist, just a point about how complete and utter freedom is not that good for people.

And you claim that you're 'entitled' to your liberty.

Fuck me, really? Entitled? That's amazing. Entitled by what? By whom? How? You're entitled to nothing, and to pretend anything else is self-deception. You got one thing right when you said you earn your property. Yes, you do. You should earn everything in life. It's a tragic fact that in the US, many people don't. They feel entitled to anything they need, and completely fail to grasp their role in society as a whole.

And I don't even understand that last part, where you randomly quoted 'life, liberty, and PURSUIT of happiness'. I guess it was to make an impact...? Or something?

Really though, you're not a dick. Just someone who was too stubborn or too lazy or too arrogant to address the points of someone he attacks. Please try to do that next time. It makes for a better discussion.

Finally, I've said it once, I'll say it again. I'm apolitical. I may have some special views on society and government, but really, where a government goes, I really don't give a damn. And I went to high school. I found it to be incredibly biased. School education isn't everything. Actually thinking for yourself can also be a good thing.

But you're not a dick.

Anyhow. Night all, and I'll check back tomorrow. I enjoy political debates, as well as religious and sociological ones.

Cadalancea

Replying to OP: because socialism is terrible for society/people/countries and the free market is good. This coming from a person educated about the issues, who actually has--gasp--reasons for believing the above.

I'm not going to enumerate my arguments, because there's no point in getting into a socialism v capitalism argument, because no-one will convince anyone else. I understand that people have completely opposite positions from me. What I take offence to, and what I am responding to, is the idea that people's opposition to socialism and championing of capitalism is not due to--gasp--rational opinions but instead brainwashing, ignorance, or stupidity.

George Bush as a progressive is what I find surreal. I'll accept that George Bush isn't a conservative... but... really? Progressive? Corporate welfare, frivolous warfare, and a curbing of civil liberties is the opposite of progressivism. If you insist on following this line of argument, you're wasting your time.

Though you did write this:

My point wasn't that you didn't retract. My point was you made that connection in the first place. To me at the time of posting, this weird peripheral illogic just illustrated what I was dealing with.

It wasn't, however, relevant to what you'd most recently posted. So I'll try to be more civil.

Yes. Both countries that manage to have lower homicide rates than us, and higher life expectancy. France has lower infant mortality. We've got roughly on par unemployment (Denmark and Switzerland being pretty low on unemployment... two socialist countries there). But fuck it, they burn cars!

CIA World Factbook... a fantastic source.

The news has a interest in making things look bad. There were similar riots in Barcelona. Those riots are pretty similar to those we get in the states. They aren't unique to Europe.

More people get killed in soccer riots.

I've been to France. I lived in Spain. People there are quite comfortable.  I even went through their socialist medical system to get my MRI and get my flu shots. No problems there. I didn't wait in any lines. People don't own cars because the public transport is good enough that you don't need them. They're just a burden... like how a car is a burden to the average New Yorker.

I've observed what you're talking about, first hand. I'll tell you straight. You're wrong.

Well, that statement shows that you either flunked history in high school, or never took it.  The DECLARATIONS are in the Declaration of Indepence, NOT the Constitution.  The constitution is a document limiting the role of government and defining its responsibilities.    It does discuss rights - in the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the articles themselves.

Therefore your whole diatribe about the Constitution being a "flawed document" is wrong.  For the very reason you mis-quote it.  It is not perfect and that is why the founders made sure it could be fixed when it was necessary (but not on a whim).  You clearly are clueless.

No, he does not have to claim it.  The legal systm of the US gurantees it.  Why?  Well, primarily because of something most people fail to undersstand.  That the CREATOR ENDOWED us with it.  Now I know religion and government is taboo, but that is where it came from, not the Constitution.  And since it was the basis for virtually all laws before the 20th century, it is embedded in the legal system.  And is at the core of the nation, so even congress cannot change that.  But thne you not knowing crap about history, I doubt you can comprehend that either.

That was stated in the Gettysburg Address, 87 years after the Declaration of Independene, and 74 years after the Constitution.  You really are stupid, and this is not just an act is it?

Again Supreme ingnorance.  The Constitution was made so that it could change!  indeed, it was changed before the ink was dry (the Bill of Rights is actually the first 10 AMENDMENTS).  You do know what AMEND means, right?  Probably not given your pablum of whiny incoherant ignorant statements.

Yes, you do.  I am glad most Americans do not.  I think that only an idiot could come to that conclusion given recent history (Haiti this year, Indian ocean 5 years ago and that is just on a national scale, not individuals where examples are too numerous to mention).  Like all people, not all Americans are altruistic.  Some are very self serving and selfish.  But only an idiot would brand a people by the actions of a select few.

No, Just some foul mouthed idiot that knows very little and understands even less.

Well said.  Capitalism is CLOSEST, though not matching, a human being's nature.  Positive reinforcement, punishment.  Socialism is only an ideal, imho.  If given the chance, people will be lazy.  My best example is in the military.  Assigning basic clean up work to a group, if you say "all clean the floor in here", some will do it, others will hide.  Over time, the worker types quickly notice the lazy ones doing less work, getting the same pay and same benefits.  Soon you have a small percentage of workers and a large percentage of "skaters" (Not clear where this came from, lol).

Trying to have leadership that fixes this problem eats up more and more time, because humans adapt so damn well.  There are no general rules you can make to apply to everyone that will fix this. 

I suggest the historical biography section of your local library.  I read a significant portion of it when I was in junior high.  After that, move up to the real meat and potatoes, the reference section.  Sadly, I read a significant portion of that starting in grade school.

No, but you missed everything you needed to know about history, as well as most your own post.  I didn't say you blamed the Constitution for socialist bullshit, you did.

It's really quite simple, you use words like entitled or obligated multiple times in reference to things you claim the Constitution says we're supposed to have.  There are no obligations to individuals or corporations in the Constitution, you're not even required to vote.  There is no obligation present in your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You are born with these things.  If you lack your liberty, it is because someone has taken it from you.  No one has to do anything for you to be free to live your own life.  If you destroy yourself with your freedom, there is no obligation to help you either.  Your pursuit of happiness is your own concern, the failure to achieve it is your own failure.

You repeated this nonsense again in your second post.  It's socialism, and it's not in the Constitution.

Expected really, given your level of education on the founding, or the lack of it, I can hardly expect you to know jack diddly about the progressive movement.

Ever heard of Wilsonianism?  It's named after one of the most prominent leaders of the progressive movement following the turn of the century.  Good ol' Woody was the original interventionist.  He's the first fucking dipshit to decide it was our duty/destiny/whatever to spread democracy to the rest of the world.  Sound familiar?

That's right kids, Bush style foreign policy traces back to Woodrow Fucking Wilson.

Bush expanded Medicare, an entitlement program.  Entitlements are from the progressive movement, in violation of the constitutional restrictions on federal powers.  This is also inarguably a progressive policy choice.

The expansion of subsidies towards ethanol, which has royally fucked various industries over and greatly increased nitrate runoff into our waterways, is also another progressive policy.  An actual conservative starts ranting and raving when people talk about doing dumb shit like this one.  Bush pushed for it big time.  Wilson was also the first president to start muddling in agricultural affairs.

Then there's the major policy change all the hippies bitch about.  The Patriot Act.  Who pushed through the Espionage Act and Sedition Act?  Woodrow Wilson.

If you go through and look at previous presidents, Wilson ends up looking really fucking familiar.  Even the financial meltdown followed the same pattern.  The markets lost 40% during the buildup to WWI, fucktard spent an astoundingly high thirty billion dollars in the following two years, over two thirds of it in debt.  Granted, this was wartime spending in 1918, but eighteen billion of it was in 1919 after the war had ended.  The depression of 1920 followed his two years of insane economic choices.  Sound like the last year of Bush 43?

If english isn't your strong point...

Nah, even if you're bi-lingual, it's just too stupid to pass up.  Gassing them all in concentration camps is not stealing their property.  Doing both wouldn't invalidate one or the other comparing to another ideology.  I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're too stupid to figure this out and weren't intentionally misquoting me, but only while grinning in an idiotic fashion.

Ignorance has validity as a reason, but it's not an excuse.  Unemployment statistics in the CIA factbook are irrelevant, they're using the official numbers.  You have to do something brilliant, like look at the actual method for comprising those numbers.

Unemployment in the US is listed at 9.9%.  It's not, it's around 20%.  The other half of the unemployed have quit bothering to look for work.  Unemployment in the US has typically been a point or two higher than reported, due to these disenchanted workers that quit looking, thus weren't counted.  Right now it's significantly higher.

The worse the job situation is in a country, the fewer unemployed there are actually being counted.  Unemployment in France is probably pushing 30% now, being above 10% has been normal for a while now.  It's why they burn cars all the time.  The younger generation is unemployed and has nothing better to do.

In Canada or the U. K. (one of the two) the suvival rate from prostate cnacer is about 70% while in the U. S. it's 90%. Just 1 of several hundred reasons.

I don't understand your arguement. So in a country like Australia, anyone who gets prostate cancer can be treated, in the US if you don't have insurance or money you don't. So even with the % of people who get prostate cancer and can't afford treatment (and so probably die), the US still has that extra 20% on other countries where everyone gets treatment?

I need to see evidence please.