Because this blog has been dead for weeks, I think I'll revitalize it.
What are some of your thoughts about the proposed Mosque near ground zero?
Leave your thoughts in the comments.
For me, I think they have every right to build it. In all honesty, we've been making "Ground Zero"'s right next to their mosques since march 2003.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Ryan Gannon VS. Lauren Abbate
A classic battle between Liberal and Conservative! Who won? YOU BE THE JUDGE!
Lauren: im going to major in political science so that stuff in so interesting to me. i wish more people our age got involved with current events its important. im not a republican, i wont say that lol im a conservative libertarian, so a little government is pretty much key to me
Ryan: I'm going to minor in political science, because I also find it interesting. I don't cal myself a democrat for obvious reasons...I'm a Marxist, or, if you prefer, a communist. The problem with this is that when someone hears communism they automaticlly think of Stalin and genocide, when that's not even accurate. I have a longer rant about that, but I'll save it for the blog.
Lauren: but if people know their history then they know that the Soviet Union was not communist, no country has ever been a true form of communism because it can not exist. you need endless resources and it is just against human nature. there will always be one person who wants more than his neighbor. socialism can't even function, its a short term fix and a long term problem. look at europe, its economy is crumbling because of socialism infiltrating the governments
Ryan: *clap clap clap clap clap* about the soviet union not being communist part. Most people don't get past that. The problem with the socialism that has existed up to today was that it is most often forced on the population by a revolution, instead of being progressive. a movement can't work without majority support, and that cant be achieved by a revolution. actually, quite the opposite: a violent revolution is, in most cases, frowned upon by the people. And I don't think socialism is the reason for the economic collapse, because the vast majority of europe is still capitalist, with a few exceptions (Sweden) being a mixed economy.
Lauren: yeah but its the slow mix of socialism with a capitalist society that causes uncertainty. with government putting in place new regulations it makes small businesses reluctant to grow. i just disagree 100% with socialism. and it doesn't matter whether or not it was put in place by a revolution or slowly by manipulating politicians. either way it won't work because resources and money are not unlimited. to quote margaret thatcher "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" that is the truth.
Ryan: It's a common misconception among people that socialism is obtained by the forced redistribution of wealth...this is untrue. Socialism is simply the redistribution of the means of production (factories, businesses) from the upper class to the middle and lower class. Whether the government should heavily regulate these businesses is very disputed amongst political theorists...In my opinion, small businesses should be about as regulated as they are now, only collectively owned by the workers (like a library), but large distributors of services such as transportation (especially air transportation), energy, healthcare, and other things like that, should be managed by the government. Democracy would still be intact, as apposed to the immovable bureaucracy of Stalinism. To quote Vladimir lenin, "Democracy is indispensable to socialism". And when you say that socialism takes up large amounts of resources, what resources are you referring to?
Lauren: um actually socialism is the redistribution of the means of production from the wealthy to the government, not the middle and lower class. and i think we can all agree that the government can barely represent themselves let alone the american people. and by resources i mean like labor, for instance with healthcare. if everyone is "entitled" to healthcare as the great Obama says we are then we will need more doctors and people in the medical profession to accommodate the increase in people now able to get medical attention.
Ryan: Then we give them more doctors and people in the medical profession. I do believe that healthcare is a right that everyone deserves, and that you should not be able to turn away patients for financial reasons. It absolutely sickens me that many people actually profit off of peoples' health (or lack therof). And labor as a resource has the ability to be expanded to create more jobs for people. With government control of the means of production, this can be done more easily than the government suggesting that corporations consider hiring more people. The result is more direct.
Lauren: do you realize how much faith you and other socialists are putting in the federal government. do you really believe that they wont act in self interest.
Ryan: A part of the transition into socialism is the installation (progressively) of what is known as the Dictatorship of the proletariat, where in this case "dictatorship" is defined as rule by one social class, not one person. So the federal government would act to further the interests of the working and middle class. We now live in a dictatorship of the bourgeois, more commonly known as a plutocracy.
Post your votes in the comments section!
Lauren: im going to major in political science so that stuff in so interesting to me. i wish more people our age got involved with current events its important. im not a republican, i wont say that lol im a conservative libertarian, so a little government is pretty much key to me
Ryan: I'm going to minor in political science, because I also find it interesting. I don't cal myself a democrat for obvious reasons...I'm a Marxist, or, if you prefer, a communist. The problem with this is that when someone hears communism they automaticlly think of Stalin and genocide, when that's not even accurate. I have a longer rant about that, but I'll save it for the blog.
Lauren: but if people know their history then they know that the Soviet Union was not communist, no country has ever been a true form of communism because it can not exist. you need endless resources and it is just against human nature. there will always be one person who wants more than his neighbor. socialism can't even function, its a short term fix and a long term problem. look at europe, its economy is crumbling because of socialism infiltrating the governments
Ryan: *clap clap clap clap clap* about the soviet union not being communist part. Most people don't get past that. The problem with the socialism that has existed up to today was that it is most often forced on the population by a revolution, instead of being progressive. a movement can't work without majority support, and that cant be achieved by a revolution. actually, quite the opposite: a violent revolution is, in most cases, frowned upon by the people. And I don't think socialism is the reason for the economic collapse, because the vast majority of europe is still capitalist, with a few exceptions (Sweden) being a mixed economy.
Lauren: yeah but its the slow mix of socialism with a capitalist society that causes uncertainty. with government putting in place new regulations it makes small businesses reluctant to grow. i just disagree 100% with socialism. and it doesn't matter whether or not it was put in place by a revolution or slowly by manipulating politicians. either way it won't work because resources and money are not unlimited. to quote margaret thatcher "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" that is the truth.
Ryan: It's a common misconception among people that socialism is obtained by the forced redistribution of wealth...this is untrue. Socialism is simply the redistribution of the means of production (factories, businesses) from the upper class to the middle and lower class. Whether the government should heavily regulate these businesses is very disputed amongst political theorists...In my opinion, small businesses should be about as regulated as they are now, only collectively owned by the workers (like a library), but large distributors of services such as transportation (especially air transportation), energy, healthcare, and other things like that, should be managed by the government. Democracy would still be intact, as apposed to the immovable bureaucracy of Stalinism. To quote Vladimir lenin, "Democracy is indispensable to socialism". And when you say that socialism takes up large amounts of resources, what resources are you referring to?
Lauren: um actually socialism is the redistribution of the means of production from the wealthy to the government, not the middle and lower class. and i think we can all agree that the government can barely represent themselves let alone the american people. and by resources i mean like labor, for instance with healthcare. if everyone is "entitled" to healthcare as the great Obama says we are then we will need more doctors and people in the medical profession to accommodate the increase in people now able to get medical attention.
Ryan: Then we give them more doctors and people in the medical profession. I do believe that healthcare is a right that everyone deserves, and that you should not be able to turn away patients for financial reasons. It absolutely sickens me that many people actually profit off of peoples' health (or lack therof). And labor as a resource has the ability to be expanded to create more jobs for people. With government control of the means of production, this can be done more easily than the government suggesting that corporations consider hiring more people. The result is more direct.
Lauren: do you realize how much faith you and other socialists are putting in the federal government. do you really believe that they wont act in self interest.
Ryan: A part of the transition into socialism is the installation (progressively) of what is known as the Dictatorship of the proletariat, where in this case "dictatorship" is defined as rule by one social class, not one person. So the federal government would act to further the interests of the working and middle class. We now live in a dictatorship of the bourgeois, more commonly known as a plutocracy.
Post your votes in the comments section!
Thoughts on Unemplyment -Ryan Gannon
This is a post from my other blog from about a week ago, but I thought it would be appropriate here. Tell me what you think in the comments, I love criticism.
A common topic of debate amongst conservatives AND liberals is unemployment. Conservatives argue that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for paying for the well being of people who are too lazy to get jobs, and therefore make a living (albeit modest) off of welfare. Liberals argue that taxpayer money should fund welfare programs to help those who are down and out, and it is an American citizen's responsibility to help his neighbor.
While there most certainly are people out there who leech off of welfare, the conservative generalization that the vast majority of the unemployed are slackers is groundless and ignorant. A few weeks ago, I read an article in the New York Times about a woman named Terri from Kentucky. She lost her job at an automotive parts plant in 2008, and has since been desperately looking for any work whatsoever. Her unemployment insurance has expired, and she has literally been left with $44.
It would seem cold-hearted to call this woman, who has lost all hope that she'll have a roof over her head in a month, a slacker or a welfare leech. I'm sure, however, that many conservatives will seize the opportunity to say: "She's been unemployed for almost 2 years? She must be lazy and living of my tax dollars!" But because, however, that she is looking quite frantically for a job, it just goes to show how scarce they have become, and what horrible ruin the economy is in. I have a theory as to why this is happening.
When Reagan became President, his neo-liberal economic theories began a steady cycle of economic deregulation, that many economists believe set the country up for the major unemployment rates we are seeing today.
In a neo-liberal economy, also known as laissez-faire capitalism, the government is completely uninvolved with the economy of the country. As a result, tariffs on international goods and prices on domestic goods drop significantly. This is good for consumers, but is crippling for workers in the long run. With lower prices comes less profit for the corporations, and what's the classic answer to a tighter budget?
Outsourcing.
As jobs are outsourced to save money, unemployment rates rise in the United States, and something like the current recession begins.
With unemployment currently at about 9.5 percent, conservative generalizations about the work ethic and motivation of the unemployed are ignorant and closed-minded. As Americans, we have a responsibility to help the poor, as opposed to just saying "We're rich! Fuck the poor!" as conservative politicians repeatedly insist on doing.
Sources:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18unemployed.html?_r=1&scp=81&sq=unemployment&st=nyt
A common topic of debate amongst conservatives AND liberals is unemployment. Conservatives argue that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for paying for the well being of people who are too lazy to get jobs, and therefore make a living (albeit modest) off of welfare. Liberals argue that taxpayer money should fund welfare programs to help those who are down and out, and it is an American citizen's responsibility to help his neighbor.
While there most certainly are people out there who leech off of welfare, the conservative generalization that the vast majority of the unemployed are slackers is groundless and ignorant. A few weeks ago, I read an article in the New York Times about a woman named Terri from Kentucky. She lost her job at an automotive parts plant in 2008, and has since been desperately looking for any work whatsoever. Her unemployment insurance has expired, and she has literally been left with $44.
It would seem cold-hearted to call this woman, who has lost all hope that she'll have a roof over her head in a month, a slacker or a welfare leech. I'm sure, however, that many conservatives will seize the opportunity to say: "She's been unemployed for almost 2 years? She must be lazy and living of my tax dollars!" But because, however, that she is looking quite frantically for a job, it just goes to show how scarce they have become, and what horrible ruin the economy is in. I have a theory as to why this is happening.
When Reagan became President, his neo-liberal economic theories began a steady cycle of economic deregulation, that many economists believe set the country up for the major unemployment rates we are seeing today.
In a neo-liberal economy, also known as laissez-faire capitalism, the government is completely uninvolved with the economy of the country. As a result, tariffs on international goods and prices on domestic goods drop significantly. This is good for consumers, but is crippling for workers in the long run. With lower prices comes less profit for the corporations, and what's the classic answer to a tighter budget?
Outsourcing.
As jobs are outsourced to save money, unemployment rates rise in the United States, and something like the current recession begins.
With unemployment currently at about 9.5 percent, conservative generalizations about the work ethic and motivation of the unemployed are ignorant and closed-minded. As Americans, we have a responsibility to help the poor, as opposed to just saying "We're rich! Fuck the poor!" as conservative politicians repeatedly insist on doing.
Sources:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18unemployed.html?_r=1&scp=81&sq=unemployment&st=nyt
Quotes
I stole this idea from Mr. Mac. Post any quotes you like about politics and the country in general (I say that because I'll probably end up posting military quotes).
Global Warming-myth, or real problem?
Since a discussion about climate change with my buddy Sol gave me the inspiration to start this blog, I figured I'd make it the first post.
Many people say that climate change is a real danger that the planet faces today, and that humans are the cause of it. Others say that it's nothing more than the regular ebb and flow of the environment, and that humans have nothing to do with it. There are many conflicting reports saying, "All scientists believe this is a problem" or "Scientists say this is a hoax". What do you believe, and do you have any reliable information to back it up?
Keep in mind that Sol will probably blow everyone out of the water with research, so be prepared for that.
Many people say that climate change is a real danger that the planet faces today, and that humans are the cause of it. Others say that it's nothing more than the regular ebb and flow of the environment, and that humans have nothing to do with it. There are many conflicting reports saying, "All scientists believe this is a problem" or "Scientists say this is a hoax". What do you believe, and do you have any reliable information to back it up?
Keep in mind that Sol will probably blow everyone out of the water with research, so be prepared for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)