Ladies and Gentlemen, Da Man Is HERE!!!!

Dixie said:
Well, according to the Constitution and rule of law, what are our classes? Specify which laws are delegated to which class of citizen in America? What? You're finding that difficult to do? Well, I would argue that we don't have classes in America! That's why it's so difficult!

Now, can we say that CULTURE and SOCIETY have successfully managed to convey a perception of CLASS? Sure can! I won't argue one little bit, that we have allowed Liberals and Socialists to brainwash us through the media, that we have distinct "classes" in America, and they all live according to their own standards and rules. Hell, I've actually had an argument with some idiot, that Mitt Romney used a completely different US Tax Code than everyone else, because of his class! But the TRUTH is, we don't designate by class in America. None of our laws allow it, none of our courts uphold it, nothing in our Constitution supports it.
Click to expand...

where in the constitution or our rule of laws is murder permissible? your question makes zero sense. it actually boggles my mind that you think just because the constitution does not allow X, then X must not exist. such a world view is limited dixie and in reality, completely misunderstands the constitution.
 
Sativa said:
where in the constitution or our rule of laws is murder permissible? your question makes zero sense. it actually boggles my mind that you think just because the constitution does not allow X, then X must not exist. such a world view is limited dixie and in reality, completely misunderstands the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not only does our Constitution "not allow" distinction by class, it's entire foundation and premise are based on a concept of equality for all, in complete contradiction to class. This has nothing to do with "world view" and everything to do with common sense and reasoning ability.

I don't understand your question about murder, I don't think it is permissible. But Bill Gates would be tried under the same laws for murder as anyone else, he doesn't enjoy a "class status" protecting him from the law. Gates could certainly hire a more expensive lawyer, and perhaps 'beat the rap' on such a charge, but the same laws and due process still apply. Again, our laws and government aren't operated on a "class" system, we don't have different standards depending on class in America.
 
Dixie said:
Not only does our Constitution "not allow" distinction by class, it's entire foundation and premise are based on a concept of equality for all, in complete contradiction to class. This has nothing to do with "world view" and everything to do with common sense and reasoning ability.

I don't understand your question about murder, I don't think it is permissible. But Bill Gates would be tried under the same laws for murder as anyone else, he doesn't enjoy a "class status" protecting him from the law. Gates could certainly hire a more expensive lawyer, and perhaps 'beat the rap' on such a charge, but the same laws and due process still apply. Again, our laws and government aren't operated on a "class" system, we don't have different standards depending on class in America.
Click to expand...

dixie, i appreciate your surreal realism and what the founding fathers envisioned for this country by creating the constitution...the reality though, is far, far different than what they envisioned and what the constitution mentions. bill gates would be tried under the same laws, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean he will be treated equally under the same laws. how many times have you seen rich and/or famous people treated differently under the same laws dixie? interestingly, it does not seem to be about skin color, rather, about money.
 
Sativa said:
dixie, i appreciate your surreal realism and what the founding fathers envisioned for this country by creating the constitution...the reality though, is far, far different than what they envisioned and what the constitution mentions. bill gates would be tried under the same laws, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean he will be treated equally under the same laws. how many times have you seen rich and/or famous people treated differently under the same laws dixie? interestingly, it does not seem to be about skin color, rather, about money.
Click to expand...

But what you have to realize is, this reality is based on our culture and not policy. Yes, wealthy or famous people are sometimes treated differently, but it's not because our laws are different or are intended to apply differently to their "class." It's a fantasy to live in a world where you believe this is the case. Our culture can also stigmatize people because of their class, look what happened to Martha Stewart. She wasn't given any 'break' because she was wealthy and famous. There is a parade of other indicted and convicted former 'wealthy' people we could bring up here, but the point is, we're all tried under the same law and system, there isn't a special court or set of laws to apply to class.
 
cawacko said:
'free markets breed inequality...' free markets have brought the U.S. the greatest standard of living this world has seen and brought millions and millions of people out of poverty. Socialism does help breed equality, everyone is equally miserable (unless you are one of the few leaders).
Click to expand...
That's true what you say about market capitalism but market capitalism only works for the public good when it is well regulated so that markets are not abused, cheated, manipulated, monopolized, etc. Having said that, there is a time and a place for socialism. Socialism is legitimate when free markets are not able to provide the goods and/or services that are needed for the public good. Would you want our military to be based on free market enterprize and lassiez-faire capitalims? Fuck no. Would you want to have a completely free market educational system? Hell no, only a fraction of our people would get educated. Would you want a completely free market health care system? No way, our publicly owned hospitals and clinics that comprise 75% of our nations health care system would collapse and our health care system with it except for the very wealthy. Is it good that the market competes or compliments these socialized instutions in our nation? Damned straight it is! So there is a time and a place for socialism, within limits, to meet the publics needs when the free market system fails to do so. Our current health care reform debate is an excellent example of that. We wouldn't even be having that debate if the free market wasn't failing us so badly in our national health care system.
 
Dixie said:
The point you are missing is, we don't have "classes" in America. We're all equally endowed with inalienable rights, we aren't defined by class. In fact, we even had this misunderstanding before, and passed specific legislation, and in some cases, Constitutional Amendments, in order to ensure it was understood, we don't define ourselves by class.

The class warfare rhetoric is coming from the left and the left alone. The right makes the mistake of responding to it. They should outright reject the notion that we have "class" in America. Our laws, our government, our institutions, do not recognize "class" in determination of outcome. This is the dirty little myth the Socialists want to promote, and it's simply not valid.

On to "exploitation and market norms" ...In a capitalist free market system, this is simply called "Supply and Demand." It's almost impossible to become wealthy supplying something that isn't in demand. But in a free market society, nothing is entirely impossible, you could use your individual imagination to create a demand for something that isn't, and become wealthy through your idea. Many have done this. Maybe they had the foresight to invest in some opportunity? In a free market society, the individual can also do this, and there are countless rags-to-riches success stories. Every American has the chance to become the next Bill Gates. You want to trade that for another chance to try Socialism, which has repeatedly ended in horrifying disaster.
Click to expand...

If you think that there is no such thing as inherited wealth in the US then you need to be introduced to the real world.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's true what you say about market capitalism but market capitalism only works for the public good when it is well regulated so that markets are not abused, cheated, manipulated, monopolized, etc. Having said that, there is a time and a place for socialism. Socialism is legitimate when free markets are not able to provide the goods and/or services that are needed for the public good. Would you want our military to be based on free market enterprize and lassiez-faire capitalims? Fuck no. Would you want to have a completely free market educational system? Hell no, only a fraction of our people would get educated. Would you want a completely free market health care system? No way, our publicly owned hospitals and clinics that comprise 75% of our nations health care system would collapse and our health care system with it except for the very wealthy. Is it good that the market competes or compliments these socialized instutions in our nation? Damned straight it is! So there is a time and a place for socialism, within limits, to meet the publics needs when the free market system fails to do so. Our current health care reform debate is an excellent example of that. We wouldn't even be having that debate if the free market wasn't failing us so badly in our national health care system.
Click to expand...

Here is something ironic for you to contemplate. In the UK, most of our utilities are privatised including water whereas I believe most water utilities are publically owned in the US?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Here is something ironic for you to contemplate. In the UK, most of our utilities are privatised including water whereas I believe most water utilities are publically owned in the US?
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn't know that about the UK. It is certainly true that most utilities in the US are publicly owned.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Interesting. I didn't know that about the UK. It is certainly true that most utilities in the US are publicly owned.
Click to expand...

Actually it is even fucking worse than that, thanks to New Labour, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown virtually all our utilities are now owned by foreign companies such as Eon and EDF.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's true what you say about market capitalism but market capitalism only works for the public good when it is well regulated so that markets are not abused, cheated, manipulated, monopolized, etc.
Click to expand...

This is where you jump the tracks of sanity and board the Crazy Train. Point of order: We have no 'system' which ensures corruption can not happen. You are assuming that this entity called "government" will forever be impartial and honest, and non-corrupt, and this is a fantasy notion. Free market capitalism works for the public good because it provides services according to demand, and allows for competitive pricing and competition in general. When you allow government to 'tinker' with it, you sometimes have very adverse consequences, like the recent housing/financial collapse.

When you've done away with the capitalist system entirely, and you lay it on government to handle, the results are the Post Office... the Tag Office... or worse, Solyndra and 'bailouts' (aka: payoffs to political donors) out the wazoo. We still very much have the same problem, we just don't have a 1-800-Customer Service line to call and complain anymore. We can't go look in the Yellow Pages for better competition, that option has gone bye-bye now, we depend on Government.

Having said that, there is a time and a place for socialism. Socialism is legitimate when free markets are not able to provide the goods and/or services that are needed for the public good. Would you want our military to be based on free market enterprize and lassiez-faire capitalims? Fuck no.
Click to expand...

But THIS isn't Socialism. It is 'socialist' in nature, and I know that is very confusing, but it's important. Our Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic, is charged with the first and foremost power to assemble a military for our national defense. As far as our national government's legitimacy goes, that is pretty much the main thing it is there for. And yes, the concept that we all pay a little bit to fund this military, is a 'socialist' principle, because we share this burden as a society.... but that does not make it Socialist.

Would you want to have a completely free market educational system? Hell no, only a fraction of our people would get educated.
Click to expand...

Is there a marginally higher rate of educational success under the Government system? It seems to me, the current system is making our children dumber and dumber, because they continue to lag behind the rest of the civilized world. This is a really good example of why a Government-only system (single payer) is BAD! Meanwhile, when people are given the flexibility of vouchers, and are able to create charter schools and explore home school options, students are flourishing, grades are up, more are entering college and furthering their education, fewer are 'dropping out' and this competitive system seems to work very well. So... I want to try something NEW.... Progressive, if you will?


Would you want a completely free market health care system? No way, our publicly owned hospitals and clinics that comprise 75% of our nations health care system would collapse and our health care system with it except for the very wealthy.
Click to expand...

But wait, up until a couple years ago (idk, some liberals claim not until 2014), we had a completely free market health care system, and it didn't seem to be drying up or blowing away, and I don't see dead corpses littering the streets from all those who lacked medical care because they were too poor. Oh wait, we passed indigent care laws in every state and we have Medicaid now, I forgot!

Is it good that the market competes or compliments these socialized instutions in our nation? Damned straight it is! So there is a time and a place for socialism, within limits, to meet the publics needs when the free market system fails to do so. Our current health care reform debate is an excellent example of that. We wouldn't even be having that debate if the free market wasn't failing us so badly in our national health care system.
Click to expand...

It is a debate we are having because the Democrat Party, in their zeal of power, decided to ram through legislation without any bipartisan support, most of which, they didn't even bother to read. The effects are being realized in a complete stagnation of new jobs and economic growth, and after blowing through nearly $3 trillion in borrowed money, we are no closer to recovery.
 
Bassman said:
then why disparage Conservatives and Conservatism?
Click to expand...

I don't. I may disagree with them and regard their views as increasingly harmful. But disparage them? Hardly.

Conservatives(which is a funny word to use of the American right) are an interesting group of people. There are some policies that make sense, and politicians with the country's collective interests in mind, but there are others who, in my mind, have abandoned them for other pursuits.

I'm not belittling them, nor does my opinion take away from their relevance - I simply hold a different morality.
 
Shy Guy said:
I don't. I may disagree with them and regard their views as increasingly harmful. But disparage them? Hardly.

Conservatives(which is a funny word to use of the American right) are an interesting group of people. There are some policies that make sense, and politicians with the country's collective interests in mind, but there are others who, in my mind, have abandoned them for other pursuits.

I'm not belittling them, nor does my opinion take away from their relevance - I simply hold a different morality.
Click to expand...
That's laughable as Democrats/Liberals don't belive in morals.
 
Bassman said:
That's laughable as Democrats/Liberals don't belive in morals.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of why you feel disparaged.

1. Shyguy replies to your question with a perfectly reasonable response and you tell him "that's laughable".
2. You then make the idiotic proclamation that all liberals and democrats "don't belive (sic) in morals".

No wonder no one takes you seriously. Basically the only option you have left is to slink your idiot self out the side door and never return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top