Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good luck with a one-party system . And you'll need luck badly.
It's not a one party system. If Dems screw up badly enough people will give Republicans a chance again but first Republicans would have to reform themselves to come back to reality and to stop being so crazy. Basically, the voters saw how extreme and irrational the Republican Party had become and voted them out. That's what is supposed to happen in a democracy. BTW The British and all other parliamentary systems allow the ruling party to actually governor with no real power for the opposition and yet their democracy is healthy and fine. If one party screws up then people just vote in one of the others.
It's not a one party system. If Dems screw up badly enough people will give Republicans a chance again but first Republicans would have to reform themselves to come back to reality and to stop being so crazy. Basically, the voters saw how extreme and irrational the Republican Party had become and voted them out. That's what is supposed to happen in a democracy. BTW The British and all other parliamentary systems allow the ruling party to actually governor with no real power for the opposition and yet their democracy is healthy and fine. If one party screws up then people just vote in one of the others.
That didn't happen in Detroit.
There is a reason the liberals destroy the schools and control the mass media. They intend to create a one-party system with stupid illiterate voters who will elect them no matter how bad they perform.
CA's debt to GDP ratio is 25th out of 50 so it does not have huge debts and instead is right in the middle of all the states wrt debt and ability to pay. Further more the state's budget is actually in surplus right now and it was in surplus before the housing bubble so you only had a six year period where it was in deficit. The state's budget is in good shape and all it took was voting Republicans out so that the adults could solve the problems in a reasonable manner.
The debt to GDP ratio is 25th out of 50? Can I see your source? I got one here that says that the debt to GDP ratio of California is ninth worst. Compare Spending By State for 2013 - Charts
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California is one of the 5 worst states for unemployment. Unemployment Rates for States
Some observers think those numbers are actually underestimating the state’s unfunded liabilities.
In January, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters used figures from a Moody’s to estimate that California "could have unfunded pension debt approaching $300 billion, plus another $100 billion for retiree health care.”
BTW, as much as Bill rails against the NRA ("nuts," "racists" and "*******s," according to him), he owns firearms himself and has admitted to such. That just really irks me.
You do know you can own a firearm without being a memeber of the NRA...right?
It's not a one party system. If Dems screw up badly enough people will give Republicans a chance again but first Republicans would have to reform themselves to come back to reality and to stop being so crazy. Basically, the voters saw how extreme and irrational the Republican Party had become and voted them out. That's what is supposed to happen in a democracy. BTW The British and all other parliamentary systems allow the ruling party to actually governor with no real power for the opposition and yet their democracy is healthy and fine. If one party screws up then people just vote in one of the others.
First off, we are a Constitutional Republic while Great Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy. Very different political system. Nevertheless, even British Parties alternate in power. CA, just like many other states and cities has insured a de-facto and perpetual a one-party system. CA's future is surely bright as one-party, Soviet's style.
There is a reason why Western European countries themselves, which American Liberals try to emulate, there is a reason why these countries, even monarchies still maintain a multi-party, pluralist political system. Think about it.
If you thought about it in world-view historical terms, US Constitution is really progressive, but not the same "progressive" as some people are characterized today. Who we call progressive today are very regressive. They want US to revert back to a 6000-old tyrannical system, which socialism is one flavor of.
Socialism has been known to wear the cloak of "civil" and "human" rights during its emergence. Because socialism is subversive in its nature. And socialism ends up being a grossly inhumane and uncivil societal state. History has proven it.
I really don't buy this. Socialism isn't tyrannical, or at least it doesn't have to be. Many of the biggest socialist states we think of here in the US (USSR being the most prominent) were tyrannical, but that wasn't the fault of socialism/communism.
Most liberals today want to redistribute wealth more evenly. Very few are actually 100% for socialism.
Quote:
So if you are finding today's socialists, like many Democrats for example, as allies in your civil issues, know this, these will be your enemies in due course. Never once in the history this has not happened.
If you are for really-progressive social changes, like gay marriage for example, while many conservatives oppose that, if you however have a libertarian spin on life (live and let live), believe me, you will find a lot in the coming years more in common with conservatives than socialists/Democrats.
I assure you, I am not democrat or republican. Neither party is fit to lead anymore, if you ask me. I would say I do identify with libertarian more than anything else. I want individuals to have their rights. I'm well aware that democrats don't fully stand by this (or fully against is either). I'm by no means against being economically conservative, but fully against socially conservative. Tradition can't always be right, and history has proven this plenty. I'm all for cutting spending or taxes or whatever, but why cut back helpful programs? Things like social security, welfare, and recently Obamacare, are here to help. I don't see these as unreasonable. And no, they aren't working perfectly, but removing them entirely, as republicans seem to want, isn't helping. Why not find the flaws in there programs to help the poor, and do something to fix them while still giving them something.
I understand the view they take. If the government provides too much, they won't want to work. There's certainly some truth to this, but without any resources, they can't do much. If the government provides enough for them to get off their feet, this is helpful.
Quote:
Socialism is in fact closeted-Marxism. Marxist theory of Communism is the theoretical underpinning for today socialism. If you peel the BS layers of Socialism, you will see Marxist communist theory laying bare.
Which means, people will have so high morals than Proletariat's Dictatorship is no longer necessary. In Communism, classes will cease to exist, nobody will steal, nobody will cheat, and most importantly, people will have such high morals that they will work and produce to the best of their industry, even knowing the fruits of labor will be enjoyed not by the individual, but by the society as a whole. And individual will get what he needs.
However religion tells us that we humans are imperfect, and we sin endlessly. And Jesus Christ is the savior, and he died for our sins. And we need to go to confession to confess our sins, try to be better people, yet we sin again.
Religion says that morals needed for Communism will never be achieved. Marxism says religion is wrong - there will be a time human morals will be perfect.
I see what you're saying. Socialism and communism are fair systems. They grant everyone a good life. The problem is that they're ideal. That it. They are impractical system based on utopian philosophy. Capitalism actually proves this. You can't trust people to do the right thing. That's the problem with both systems. While in socialism, you worry if the government will take advantage whereas in capitalism, it's more the wealthy you worry about.
A middle ground between socialism and capitalism seems reasonable. Too much socialism is too much government and too much capitalism is too much poverty. Without some government regulation is capitalism, life would be awful for anyone who isn't a wealthy business owner. No government regulation leads to poor wages, trashing the environment, and a general mess of problems. We've already seen this happen. I don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and have the power, and the poor will suffer, and pure capitalism does this. Pure socialism doesn't, the problem is that it's difficult to keep pure.
As I said, a smart middle ground is reasonable. Government get involved when it needs to but lets business (and local government as well) do it's thing on it's own when things run smoothly.
Quote:
I don't think this really tells me anything. You should really give us some examples, AND tell us how are these rights derived, who gave us these rights, and how do we balance these rights with rights of others, who may be in contradiction with said rights.
Well, there's freedom of religion. We should all have this right. This means one religion can't be forced onto another religion. In short, secularism in the government. As in no Christian based laws, which republicans readily accept. I don't want to be forced into a fundamental christian lifestyle, and freedom of religion says I don't have to. In short, we should all be able to practice or not to practice in whatever religion we want without opposition. This right is given in the constitution, and I've found has only loosely been followed, as seen by the republican view on gay marriage and the mosque controversy on ground zero.
Another example is the right to wealth. If someone works and does a good job, they should be payed. The issue I have with how things currently works is this lovely example: The CEO of Apple (Tim Cook) get paid far too much. It would take 6,000 some Apple employees to reach his salary, and I highly doubt the work he does would require 6000 people. Why should he get paid this much? Point is, people should be paid reasonably. A CEO need not make that much more than his employees. Do I think the government should be breathing down business owners necks? No. But something should be done about the people who have important jobs but aren't getting paid nearly enough. A fine example of this is a janitor. They do not make much at all, and I fail to see their job an unimportant. It's not glamorous, but without them, imagine what your office bathroom will look like. Point is, everyone deserves a good pay. I'm not saying everyone should get paid the same, but there's a point where you have to ask 'why is Tim Cook making that much more than his employees; what does he do to get that?'
I really don't buy this. Socialism isn't tyrannical, or at least it doesn't have to be. Many of the biggest socialist states we think of here in the US (USSR being the most prominent) were tyrannical, but that wasn't the fault of socialism/communism.
Most liberals today want to redistribute wealth more evenly. Very few are actually 100% for socialism.
I assure you, I am not democrat or republican. Neither party is fit to lead anymore, if you ask me. I would say I do identify with libertarian more than anything else. I want individuals to have their rights. I'm well aware that democrats don't fully stand by this (or fully against is either). I'm by no means against being economically conservative, but fully against socially conservative. Tradition can't always be right, and history has proven this plenty. I'm all for cutting spending or taxes or whatever, but why cut back helpful programs? Things like social security, welfare, and recently Obamacare, are here to help. I don't see these as unreasonable. And no, they aren't working perfectly, but removing them entirely, as republicans seem to want, isn't helping. Why not find the flaws in there programs to help the poor, and do something to fix them while still giving them something.
I understand the view they take. If the government provides too much, they won't want to work. There's certainly some truth to this, but without any resources, they can't do much. If the government provides enough for them to get off their feet, this is helpful.
I see what you're saying. Socialism and communism are fair systems. They grant everyone a good life. The problem is that they're ideal. That it. They are impractical system based on utopian philosophy. Capitalism actually proves this. You can't trust people to do the right thing. That's the problem with both systems. While in socialism, you worry if the government will take advantage whereas in capitalism, it's more the wealthy you worry about.
A middle ground between socialism and capitalism seems reasonable. Too much socialism is too much government and too much capitalism is too much poverty. Without some government regulation is capitalism, life would be awful for anyone who isn't a wealthy business owner. No government regulation leads to poor wages, trashing the environment, and a general mess of problems. We've already seen this happen. I don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and have the power, and the poor will suffer, and pure capitalism does this. Pure socialism doesn't, the problem is that it's difficult to keep pure.
As I said, a smart middle ground is reasonable. Government get involved when it needs to but lets business (and local government as well) do it's thing on it's own when things run smoothly.
Well, there's freedom of religion. We should all have this right. This means one religion can't be forced onto another religion. In short, secularism in the government. As in no Christian based laws, which republicans readily accept. I don't want to be forced into a fundamental christian lifestyle, and freedom of religion says I don't have to. In short, we should all be able to practice or not to practice in whatever religion we want without opposition. This right is given in the constitution, and I've found has only loosely been followed, as seen by the republican view on gay marriage and the mosque controversy on ground zero.
Another example is the right to wealth. If someone works and does a good job, they should be payed. The issue I have with how things currently works is this lovely example: The CEO of Apple (Tim Cook) get paid far too much. It would take 6,000 some Apple employees to reach his salary, and I highly doubt the work he does would require 6000 people. Why should he get paid this much? Point is, people should be paid reasonably. A CEO need not make that much more than his employees. Do I think the government should be breathing down business owners necks? No. But something should be done about the people who have important jobs but aren't getting paid nearly enough. A fine example of this is a janitor. They do not make much at all, and I fail to see their job an unimportant. It's not glamorous, but without them, imagine what your office bathroom will look like. Point is, everyone deserves a good pay. I'm not saying everyone should get paid the same, but there's a point where you have to ask 'why is Tim Cook making that much more than his employees; what does he do to get that?'
It is weird that you call yourself a libertarian, but you still support big government. You need to look further into the principles of liberty. A real libertarian would never say "the middle ground between socialism and capitalism seems acceptable.".
You do know you can own a firearm without being a memeber of the NRA...right?
I own firearms and would never associate with a collection of people like those who belong to that organization. Furthermore, I have nothing against gun control advocates, as they are about tightening the easy availability of firearms, which is heretical to the NRA.
That's because the weather is nice. Don't kid yourself into thinking it is anything else.
Not to mention, also in the same poll, more people chose California as the place they would least like to live than any other state...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And you'll need luck badly.
