News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Outside Stupid
AI Thread Summary
The re-election of George W. Bush has sparked significant criticism, particularly from Canadian politicians who argue that it reflects a disconnect between American voters and global perspectives. Carolyn Parrish expressed disbelief at Bush's victory, attributing it to the psychological impact of 9/11 and condemning his war policies. Discussions reveal a divide in understanding American political motivations, with some attributing Bush's support to fear and a lack of intelligence, while others defend the choice as a rejection of socialism. The debate highlights tensions in U.S.-Canada relations, especially regarding military policies and social issues. Overall, the election outcome is viewed as indicative of broader issues within American democracy and its alignment with global values.
member 5645
OTTAWA -- The re-election of a war-mongering president shows Americans are "out of step" with the rest of the world, says a Liberal MP infamous for her blistering attacks on George W. Bush.

Carolyn Parrish said Wednesday that she's "dumbfounded" by Bush's victory. "He has been reconfirmed as their commander-in-chief, and he is a war-like man." American voters showed that they are "completely out of step with most of the free world," Parrish said. "I guess it's a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9-11."

The comments came just hours after Prime Minister Paul Martin warned his MPs in a private caucus meeting not to make incendiary comments in the wake of the U.S. election.

Parrish wasn't at the meeting and apparently didn't get the message.

Earlier this fall, Parrish publicly expressed her disdain for what she called the "coalition of the idiots" who back the U.S. missile defence plan.

Last year, she referred to the Bush administration as American "bastards."

Now, Parrish is urging Bush to dump his ballistic missile program, suggesting his immediate concern should be getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I would hope that he'd concentrate on getting the U.S. out of those two problems they've got," she said.

"I think his immediate concern should be where he has soldiers dying."

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said with Bush remaining in power, Canada now has a tough choice to make.

Layton calls missile defence one of the most important issues affecting Canada-U.S. relations.

"Now the Canadian government has to sit down and say, all right, how are we going to move forward on the issues important to Canadians," he said.

"This means that Canadians have to speak up against the missile defence system and say 'No' to participation."

Look woman, we aren't stupid. We didn't vote 9/11. We didn't vote Bush to stop gays from Marrying.
I am so sick of people who do not understand the American political landscape, and who are obviously EXTREMELY confined in their thoughts, trying to come up with one reason on why Bush won. If it is SO amazing to you that he did, then YOU are completely out of touch yourself. Disagreement is one thing, but the continued pawning off that we are stupid, or Bin Laden made us do it, is nothing less than insulting (especially after giving myself more than a few years off my life from stressing out on who to vote for).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phatmonky said:
Look woman, we aren't stupid. We didn't vote 9/11. We didn't vote Bush to stop gays from Marrying.
I am so sick of people who do not understand the American political landscape, and who are obviously EXTREMELY confined in their thoughts, trying to come up with one reason on why Bush won. If it is SO amazing to you that he did, then YOU are completely out of touch yourself. Disagreement is one thing, but the continued pawning off that we are stupid, or Bin Laden made us do it, is nothing less than insulting (especially after giving myself more than a few years off my life from stressing out on who to vote for).


That is exactly what I am screaming!

Great post.
 
So, Karl Rove's strategy was completely inconsequential in securing Bush's reelection?
 
Note to Europeans, Socialists (Synonmous), and all others who just don't get it:

Of course we're "out of step with the rest of the world." We're not socialist! Sorry. It is an irony that socialism has seen more expansion and victory in the post cold war era after the fall of the soviet union than it saw in the hundred years previous. But its not spreading here. Sorry. Get over it.

We don't agree with you. We like earning our money. We like competition. We like freedom to, not freedom from. We are not succumbing to socialism like the rest of you. So shove it.
 
franznietzsche said:
Note to Europeans, Socialists (Synonmous), and all others who just don't get it:

Of course we're "out of step with the rest of the world." We're not socialist! Sorry. It is an irony that socialism has seen more expansion and victory in the post cold war era after the fall of the soviet union than it saw in the hundred years previous. But its not spreading here. Sorry. Get over it.

We don't agree with you. We like earning our money. We like competition. We like freedom to, not freedom from. We are not succumbing to socialism like the rest of you. So shove it.

Nice one! really fighting the stereotype of the ignorant Bush supporter!
 
Canada realizes those who voted for Bush made a bad decision. The NDP knows we need to stick up against the U.S and the (gaining in popularity) right-wing beliefs it holds.

Most Americans did vote for Bush based on fear or lack of intelligence. Voting for Bush based on moral beliefs is due to religion which has a correlation with intelligence. Terrorism was also a major issue that Bush led in popularity on. If I was living in America right now I wouldn't hesistate to argue with a crowd of republicans since Canadians stick up for keeping peace and realize when a government is commiting atrocities of war. Bush actually expects to kill people and achieve long-term peace through violence. Killing people and peace - doesn't anyone see the contradiction?

Bush won because America is an example of a failing democracy. You voted for the wrong person - you didn't vote Bush in alone, there is no need to rationalize. Some people are suprised at the result of the U.S election because they once had faith in the American people and democracy in the U.S.

People should also vote based on the candidate as a whole, not one issue. You voted for a leader with business policies that you liked perhaps - but what if he was racist? Would you vote for him then? The prevention of gay-marriage is like an unspoken prejudice that lingers over the unsatisfied gay individuals, gay rights activists, and gay marriage supporters. Injustice does not settle well certain people even if they aren't directly affected.
 
Last edited:
franznietsche:
That is precisely the type of idiot comment which shows how brainwashed you are.
 
The problem is that to people outside the US Bush is an extremist and a stupid one at that; it frightens people that such a man should hold the most powerful job in the world.
 
Hey arildno, how is it that you bash franznietsche but not Dooga Blackrazor? Or are you in agreement with Dooga's statement?


Dooga Blackrazor said:
Most Americans did vote for Bush based on fear or lack of intelligence.

:confused:


What is wrong with you people?
 
  • #10
jcsd said:
Nice one! really fighting the stereotype of the ignorant Bush supporter!

Ironic because i don't support him. I don't supprot social conservatism. I don't like religious fundamentalists. But, I HATE socialists. Thats what it comes down to.
 
  • #11
jcsd said:
Nice one! really fighting the stereotype of the ignorant Bush supporter!

I have a hard time seeing how his statement is even half as ignorant is Dooga's diatribe...
 
  • #12
Dooga Blackrazor said:
Canada realizes those who voted for Bush made a bad decision. The NDP knows we need to stick up against the U.S and the (gaining in popularity) right-wing beliefs it holds.

Most Americans did vote for Bush based on fear or lack of intelligence. Voting for Bush based on moral beliefs is due to religion which has a correlation with intelligence. Terrorism was also a major issue that Bush led in popularity on. If I was living in America right now I wouldn't hesistate to argue with a crowd of republicans since Canadians stick up for keeping peace and realize when a government is commiting atrocities of war. Bush actually expects to kill people and achieve long-term peace through violence. Killing people and peace - doesn't anyone see the contradiction?

Bush won because America is an example of a failing democracy. You voted for the wrong person - you didn't vote Bush in alone, there is no need to rationalize. Some people are suprised at the result of the U.S election because they once had faith in the American people and democracy in the U.S.

People should also vote based on the candidate as a whole, not one issue. You voted for a leader with business policies that you liked perhaps - but what if he was racist? Would you vote for him then? The prevention of gay-marriage is like an unspoken prejudice that lingers over the unsatisfied gay individuals, gay rights activists, and gay marriage supporters. Injustice does not settle well certain people even if they aren't directly affected.

Its a failure of democracy because the majority got what they asked for?

Or because they didn't ask for what you wanted?
 
  • #13
arildno said:
franznietsche:
That is precisely the type of idiot comment which shows how brainwashed you are.


I bow before your superior counterpoint?
 
  • #14
Townsend said:
Hey arildno, how is it that you bash franznietsche but not Dooga Blackrazor? Or are you in agreement with Dooga's statement?




:confused:


What is wrong with you people?

Most Americans did, in fact, vote for Bush because of a lack of intelligence (fear) or they were conservative Christians, which does correlate with intelligence.
 
  • #15
Townsend said:
Hey arildno, how is it that you bash franznietsche but not Dooga Blackrazor? Or are you in agreement with Dooga's statement?
I completely disagree with Dooga's statement that the US is a failing democracy.
IMO, it is not.
 
  • #16
Townsend said:
I have a hard time seeing how his statement is even half as ignorant is Dooga's diatribe...

Because he agrees with Dooga's diatribe. He doesn't agree with me.
 
  • #17
franznietzsche said:
Ironic because i don't support him. I don't supprot social conservatism. I don't like religious fundamentalists. But, I HATE socialists. Thats what it comes down to.

What's a socialist? Your using such a broad term, is Tony Blair's Labour party socialist (they are infact in the Socialist bl;ock of the European parliment), is it the Swedish democratic socialist model your talking about? Is it marginal groups like the Socilaist Workers Party? is it Trotskyism/Marxism/Maoism/Hoxhaism/Stalinism/Leninism?
 
  • #18
graphic7 said:
Most Americans did, in fact, vote for Bush because of a lack of intelligence (fear) or they were conservative Christians, which does correlate with intelligence.

I suppose you expect me to just believe you? I could easily just make up something and say its true but I will not because I actually try to support my arguments with some kind of evidence which I might add you have NONE of and I challenge you to either find some real non biased proof for your claims or concede that you are basing your ideas on ignorance!

Regards
 
  • #19
franznietzsche said:
I bow before your superior counterpoint?
Thank you.
Learn something about the rest of the world before you speak.
 
  • #20
franznietzsche said:
Note to Europeans, Socialists (Synonmous), and all others who just don't get it:

Of course we're "out of step with the rest of the world." We're not socialist! Sorry. It is an irony that socialism has seen more expansion and victory in the post cold war era after the fall of the soviet union than it saw in the hundred years previous. But its not spreading here. Sorry. Get over it.

We don't agree with you. We like earning our money. We like competition. We like freedom to, not freedom from. We are not succumbing to socialism like the rest of you. So shove it.

Stop that stupid argument on sociailism, it shows how you are conditioned by elites to think that any progressive public program like national medicare eqates in your mind with something scary.
Democracy means rule by the people,meanwhile what we have in USA is extreme plutocracy .
If you were ultra rich I would agree with your statement 100% but reading from your profile you are propably just student in debt,and people like this should be more compassionate and think about other less fortunate!
 
  • #21
graphic7 said:
Most Americans did, in fact, vote for Bush because of a lack of intelligence (fear) or they were conservative Christians, which does correlate with intelligence.

Fear does not equal a lack of intelligence. There is no relation, assuming they have something real to be afraid of, like death(or is it?)

Are you saying religious people are morons? I think that's what you're saying. I concur.
 
  • #22
Townsend said:
I suppose you expect me to just believe you? I could easily just make up something and say its true but I will not because I actually try to support my arguments with some kind of evidence which I might add you have NONE of and I challenge you to either find some real non biased proof for your claims or concede that you are basing your ideas on ignorance!

Regards

I don't have any 'non-biased proof,' nor do I care to have any. I'm right, you're wrong, and what's done is done. :zzz:
 
  • #23
Townsend said:
I have a hard time seeing how his statement is even half as ignorant is Dooga's diatribe...

C'mon they both contain some profoundly ignorant staemnts.
 
  • #24
franznietzsche said:
Fear does not equal a lack of intelligence. There is no relation, assuming they have something real to be afraid of, like death(or is it?)

Are you saying religious people are morons? I think that's what you're saying. I concur.

Well, I should rephrase, I suppose. Ignorance correlates to a lack of intelligence, and in some cases ignorance can be related to fear. Indeed, I am saying religious people are morons.
 
  • #25
jcsd said:
What's a socialist? Your using such a broad term, is Tony Blair's Labour party socialist (they are infact in the Socialist bl;ock of the European parliment), is it the Swedish democratic socialist model your talking about? Is it marginal groups like the Socilaist Workers Party? is it Trotskyism/Marxism/Maoism/Hoxhaism/Stalinism/Leninism?


Marxism/Maoism/Trotskyism (i think world wide its accepted that leninism/stalinism are dead, and i don't recognize the term hoxhaism), but let me define:

Socialism = "Belief that government should compensate for material inequities inherent in a capitalist system"

Socialist causes = "War on Poverty," government subsidizing of health care, exorbitant taxes on employers (i'm not just talking about corporations, I'm talking about people like my aunt and uncle who own a small business with about 200-250 employees, and even smaller employers), rhetoric of "the working man" and similar BS.
 
  • #26
graphic7 said:
I don't have any 'non-biased proof,' nor do I care to have any. I'm right, you're wrong, and what's done is done. :zzz:


Sounds like a Bush supporter to me.

Oh wait, is he supposed to be condemning them?
 
  • #27
Its flabbergastingly arrogant to call those who voted Bush brainwashed or manipulated. If the world had used real arguments against Bush instead of rethoric hatemongering, i doubt Bush would have beat Kerry. A blowjob is enough to get rid of a president, but they blew it. They preached hate and the majority naturally turned against them.
I wouldn't have minded Kerry as president at all, but they deserved to lose this time, poor kerry.
 
  • #28
tumor said:
Stop that stupid argument on sociailism, it shows how you are conditioned by elites to think that any progressive public program like national medicare eqates in your mind with something scary.
Democracy means rule by the people,meanwhile what we have in USA is extreme plutocracy .
If you were ultra rich I would agree with your statement 100% but reading from your profile you are propably just student in debt,and people like this should be more compassionate and think about other less fortunate!

Actually this is a timocracy rather than a plutocracy. And the only authentic example of one in history i might add.

yes i am a student in debt. But i believe in working for my keep. I don't want to have things handed to me, i believe in earning them. Is it so hard for anyone to believe that i actually just believe in the honor of work, and earning what you get? Is everyone that cynical? I'm an idealist, of the worst kind.
 
  • #29
franznietzsche said:
Sounds like a Bush supporter to me.

Oh wait, is he supposed to be condemning them?

No, it's just something I don't think I can alone prove, therefore, it's not worth my time scraping up 'non-biased' proof. If I were to scrape up a bit of 'non-biased' proof, you'd be offended or someone would and that would make you biased towards any 'non-biased' proof I presented.

I'm basing my thoughts on events I have observed in first-person, which to me are the most valuable.
 
  • #30
graphic7 said:
Well, I should rephrase, I suppose. Ignorance correlates to a lack of intelligence, and in some cases ignorance can be related to fear. Indeed, I am saying religious people are morons.


"From the start, the Christian faith is a scrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation. There is cruelty and religious Phoenicianism in this faith which is expected of an over-ripe, multiple, and much-spoiled conscience: it presupposes that the subjection of the spirity hurts indescribably; that the whole past and the habits of such a spirit resist the absurdissimum which "faith" represents to it"

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aAphorism 46
 
  • #31
Everyone be nice...stop insulting each other...

I know these threads can get heated, just cool off a minute before you reply.
 
  • #32
franznietzsche said:
Is it so hard for anyone to believe that i actually just believe in the honor of work, and earning what you get? Is everyone that cynical? I'm an idealist, of the worst kind.

No! you are not an idealist, you are materialist/egoist.
 
  • #33
franznietzsche said:
"From the start, the Christian faith is a scrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation. There is cruelty and religious Phoenicianism in this faith which is expected of an over-ripe, multiple, and much-spoiled conscience: it presupposes that the subjection of the spirity hurts indescribably; that the whole past and the habits of such a spirit resist the absurdissimum which "faith" represents to it"

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aAphorism 46

I don't want to get caught off topic about religion, but that's a quote I'm going to have to remember .
 
  • #34
franznietzsche said:
Marxism/Maoism/Trotskyism (i think world wide its accepted that leninism/stalinism are dead, and i don't recognize the term hoxhaism), but let me define:

Maoism, Marxism and Trotskyism are very, very marginal poltical views in Europe (though certinly some parties have been influenced by Marxism). Stalisnism is alive (but again very marginal) in all parts of the world (for example in the US, the orgnaisers of the antiwar protests were ANSWER who are Stalinists). Most far left groups claim to be Leninists to some extenet (for example the Maosist-Leninists). Hoxha was the communist dicataor of Albania.

Socialism = "Belief that government should compensate for material inequities inherent in a capitalist system"

To general, neraly all governmenst , especially democratic ones go for some level of wealth redistribution whether direct or indirect.

Socialist causes = "War on Poverty," government subsidizing of health care, exorbitant taxes on employers (i'm not just talking about corporations, I'm talking about people like my aunt and uncle who own a small business with about 200-250 employees, and even smaller employers), rhetoric of "the working man" and similar BS.

Again neraly all governemnts worldwode subsidize helathcare to some extent (and I fail to see what's wrong with that, should we want the poor to die through lack of healthcare) again define exoribitant.

In short I really think your repeating some half-assed views that you heard someone else say as you don't know how the term 'socialist' is actually used other than as an insult. Sthe word socialism is used to describe a myriad of difefrent polical philsophies, some of them extremely unlike each other.
 
  • #35
Materialist? Odd word for me. Did you know i plan on going into academia and research? I think i could make far more money elsewhere. I expect i'll be living through what has been described to me by some professors as "abject poverty" during grad school. Oh well, i don't mind.

You people call me ignorant. You see my name? You think it might have more than trivial significance?

Ever read Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad? I have great respect for Marlow. Marlow is the the I]last man[/I] .

Have you ever read The Metamorphosis? Gregor is the common man.

Hace you ever read Thus Spoke Zarathustra?

"Thus Spoke Zarathustra said:
Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over the abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that is an overture and a going under.

I love those who do not know how to live, except by going under, for they are those who cross over.

I love the great despisers because they are the great reverers and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifics themselves for the earth, that the Earth may someday become the overman's.

I love him who lives to know, and who wants to know so that the overman may live some day. And thus he wants to go under...

I love him who loves his his virtue, for virtue is the will to go under and an arrow of longing...

I love him who is abashed when the dice fall to make his fortune, and asks "Am I a crooked gambler?' For he wants to perish...

Behold, I am a herald of lightning and a heavy drop from the cloud; but this lightning is called the overman.

Or Beyond Good and Evil:

"Beyond Good and Evil said:
The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their "man of the future"--as their ideal--this degeneration and diminuition of man into the perfect herd animal (or, as they say to the man of the "free society"), this animilization of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims, is possible, there is no doubt of it. Anyone who has once thought through this possibility to the end knows one kind of nausea that other mean don't know--but perhaps also a new task!.

If you understood anything about me, or these books you might have a clue about what I'm talking about. But as it is, you are too ignorant, and uneducated, too plebeian to understand.

As for for egoistic, i plead guilty there. I would quote Muhammed Ali, but it would be redundant.
 
  • #36
Franznietzsche;I also forgot to add, you are pretentious.
 
  • #37
jcsd said:
Maoism, Marxism and Trotskyism are very, very marginal poltical views in Europe (though certinly some parties have been influenced by Marxism). Stalisnism is alive (but again very marginal) in all parts of the world (for example in the US, the orgnaisers of the antiwar protests were ANSWER who are Stalinists). Most far left groups claim to be Leninists to some extenet (for example the Maosist-Leninists). Hoxha was the communist dicataor of Albania.



To general, neraly all governmenst , especially democratic ones go for some level of wealth redistribution whether direct or indirect.



Again neraly all governemnts worldwode subsidize helathcare to some extent (and I fail to see what's wrong with that, should we want the poor to die through lack of healthcare) again define exoribitant.

In short I really think your repeating some half-assed views that you heard someone else say as you don't know how the term 'socialist' is actually used other than as an insult. Sthe word socialism is used to describe a myriad of difefrent polical philsophies, some of them extremely unlike each other.


Actually i should have been more clear. I am against a system like Sweden's. That is socialist. I think it is a very good example of what i refer to when i say socialist. But i don't just mean that system, I'm referring to the fundamental personal beliefs that lead to such a system. I'm referring to socialism as a recurrent set of cultural beliefs that are very strong in Europe, and form the foundation of the far liberal left in America.

I have no problemwith government run health care, as long as it is not the only option. There are county hospitals now. Expanding them and opening care options to the poor is fine. But not at the expense of people who are in no way involved or profit from that policy. Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me.

Further example: democratic pandering to illegal aliens in california. Unaccpetable. They are non citizens, they have no business profiting or benefitting form the tax dollars of citizens. IF they have violated the laws to come here, they should be sent back. If they are here legally, paying taxes, contributing, fine they should get a basic standard of care that they get for being alive. But they should not be subsisting off of the taxes, and thus earnings of others.

Thats the problem. Where do you draw the line between fair aid, and survivng soley on the earnings of others? What is the line between self-sufficiency and dependency? Socialism favors dependency on the state. I am categorically opposed to that.
 
  • #38
"Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me."

And paying out share profits to someone who doesn't do a damn thing is okay?

IMO, BOTH groups are leeches.
 
  • #39
arildno said:
"Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me."

And paying out share profits to someone who doesn't do a damn thing is okay?

IMO, BOTH groups are leeches.


I'm not sure if you're referring to dividends for market investors, or to CEOs or both. Either way:

Let me explain capitalism to you, since you must have had trouble in economics in college. You offer a service, you get a price. That price is affected by the demand for your product, which is affected by its necessity (gas is very necessary, so the price can afford to go higher without lowering demand too much), and its quality.

In the case of investors, they provide capital to a company when they buy shares. That capital is used to supplement the company's revenue and is used for typically for special expenditures, expansionary moves, infrastsructure building, etc. the investors provide a service, and in return, they get paid.

If you're saying CEOs don't work i would love to see you try their jobs. Just because they don't unload the docks doesn't mean they have easy jobs. And the nature of capitalism is such that their jobs are more valuable, they are harder to replace than a guy unloading the docks. Anyone, with sufficient muscle mass, can unload a truck. Far fewer people know how to run a major corporation successfully.
 
  • #40
franznietsche:
That is precisely the type of idiot comment which shows how brainwashed you are.


Brainwashed by what? We are free with no socialism or communism in our government.

Does it not make sense to Europeans that when enemies of the United States would rather John Kerry get elected than George Bush that maybe Kerry is not that great? That it isn't a good idea to elect him? That they fear Bush and realized that he will not allow them to slip through our fingers again, allowing terrorist groups time to gain strength once more?

Well, I should rephrase, I suppose. Ignorance correlates to a lack of intelligence, and in some cases ignorance can be related to fear. Indeed, I am saying religious people are morons.

I'm sorry you feel I am a moron. The problem is I could care less if you make what can be considered a personal attack by any muslim, christian, hindu, or jewish or any other religious person in the forums. Be more conscious of what you say.
 
  • #41
I lived in many European countries, each one of them has national health care,early child care(kindergarten),maternity leave -no big deal.
In USA there is none of that.What the ****? those are basic human needs, in particular child development and social interaction.This is needed to form strong communal bonds between people.
Instead, here we have kids growing to be selfish and egoistic,spending most of their early lives lonely in front of the TV and growing to become very easilly influenced by propaganda.
 
  • #42
This has nothing to do with the health care system. that is a societal problem. That is caused by more women having jobs. You don't see men looking for time off to raise kids. If women want equal pay then they have to do equal work, which means timeoff to raise the kids is not something to be expected. This wasn't a problem before women entered the workforce in large numbers. I'm not saying women shouldn't work, but i am saying that them working is not a good idea if they have kids. Of course, some have to. This brings in the decay of the nuclear family, a major republican issue. Again that didn't use to be a problem.

You keep talking about basic human rights. This is the most privileged nation on the earth. The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.
 
  • #43
if i needed an operation- I would rather be in Sweden than Philadelphia- and so would you Franz-


it always puzzles me how people rationalize social-darwinism when fitness is too complex to measure in humans- we all have weaknesses and strengths- and you cannot justify discarding PEOPLE- what do you have to say about people that are disabled and cannot work? do we throw them to the wolves? what about the working poor- like black single mothers working two jobs that still can't pay for her children? do we let her family suffer instead of helping? do you relay on the private sector and hope they aren't greedy? what about the homeless who 90% are too mentally ill to even make basic life decisions? do we restart the zyklon ovens or do you try to help them? do we abandon the "lazy" and the addicted because their brains are structured to make dopamine impossible to resist? do we stick with old incorrect judgements and condemnations about the shiftless and the slovenly being sinful instead of ignoring the facts shown in neuroscience?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
I would also like to add Graphic7 that I am by no means a heavily religious person. Yes, I practice my faith but I am not obsessed with it as some people are. And you have no right to judge anyone let alone a large group of people, considering that over 90 percent of the worlds population believes in a God of some sort, meaning they either have a religion or are likely in search of one. Congratulations on that half thought through insult.
 
  • #45
No socialism does not favour depedning on the state, it's odd that you should be against the Sweedish model as for many years it consistent;ly deloivered one of the highest standards of living the world, ceratoinly higher than the standard of living in the US.

Most socialists views believe in helping other people to some extent and it seems to me that this is what you are against! Personally I would not like to live in a soceity of scoipaths (if such a thing can be called a society) were no-one lifts a finger o help anyone else. Ypou seem to think that if you work hard you will not be poor and you will always be able to afford helathcare, this is quite frankly naive (I infact used to work for the UK Department of Work and Pensions so I can tell you this view is completely wrong).

I don't know why you bring up the Democrats as they are not by amny strecth of the imagination socialist and there is no consistent view on immigration among the many different beliefs that are called sometimes called socilaist. Socialism does not favour depwendcy on the state, a feature genrally shared by these ideas (again I sya it is stupid though to talk about Stalisim and the Swedish model as if they share any common ground) is that evryone should contribute.

The point is that you seem to be launching a blind attack against views that you are not famlir with.
 
  • #46
Political Prodigy said:
I'm sorry you feel I am a moron. The problem is I could care less if you make what can be considered a personal attack by any muslim, christian, hindu, or jewish or any other religious person in the forums. Be more conscious of what you say.

I am conscious of what I said above. :blushing:

And if you "don't care," why in the world are you wasting your time by making this reply? :rolleyes:
 
  • #47
franznietzsche said:
You keep talking about basic human rights. This is the most privileged nation on the earth. The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.

Give me 2 billion $ which USA spends on one B-2 bomber and I personally will make those two countries prosperous for the next 100 years.
 
  • #48
franznietzsche said:
The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.

That's the point though isn't it? The poor in the US are infact some of the worst off people in the Western world.
 
  • #49
And if you "don't care," why in the world are you wasting your time by making this reply?

1) To tell you to be more conscious of what you say.
2) So that you know that although I could care less what you think of religious people it is still offensive and I highly doubt I am the only one to think so.
3) In case someone did not want to reply and felt the same way, but were afraid they would have to put up with many of the insults that have already been given out to several people in this thread.
 
  • #50
Political Prodigy said:
3) In case someone did not want to reply and felt the same way, but were afraid they would have to put up with many of the insults that have already been given out to several people in this thread.

I applaud your courage. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
56
Views
11K
Replies
62
Views
9K
Replies
36
Views
7K
42
Replies
2K
Views
148K
Back
Top