Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Your Taxes Subsidize Socialist China

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-22 2:53

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-22 11:08

Foreign aid sucks.  I blame the neo-liberals.

Name: Xel 2006-08-22 14:07

>>2 Blaming won't do any good. Vote libertarian or give the dems another message by telling constituents et. al they'll have to shape up. Muttering about in forums isn't good unless you use argumentation or facts. Does left-wing governments spend more on foreign aid? Does America has a moral obligation to help people whose countries it has messed with in the past? Address stuff like that instead of making up new political factions.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-22 16:46

USA need China for the sake of her economy. Hate to admit it, but it is the truth.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-22 18:29

>>4
No it doesn't. China needs the US.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-22 19:01

>>5
The US needs cheap labor or nobody will buy their overpriced crap. Sorry, you lose.

Name: Xel 2006-08-23 1:04

>>6 China will need immeasurable amounts of energy to get all their potential growth, and are currently dealing with India, Pakistan, Russia and Iran to make sure they get some fossil-pie. Hands up everyone who thinks the American economy and military is going to let that slide.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-23 2:25

>>7
Why wouldn't it.

Name: Xel 2006-08-23 2:31

>>8 How do I ask question. The thing is, before the end of the century, the dire need for oil is going to incapacitate parts of the first-world economies, and  since humans, like most organisms, value immediate satisfaction over more nebulous but far greater rewards in the future, very poor decisions will be made.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-23 3:49

>>3
"Blaming won't do any good."

Yes it will.  Or it might.  I just need to get enough people to punish them at the polls, and they will change. 

"Vote libertarian or give the dems another message by telling constituents et. al they'll have to shape up."

That might work.

"Muttering about in forums isn't good unless you use argumentation or facts. Does left-wing governments spend more on foreign aid?"

The liberals support foreign aid to help out poorer countries.  Said countries are often poor due to having shitty governments that oppress both people's economic, and personal freedoms.  Unfortunately, foreign aid doesn't help their situation, but often serves to further entrench the bad governments that are making them poor to begin with.  Conservatives on the other hand... well, neo-conservatives, anyway, say invade said countries, instate better governments, and eliminate the cause of their plight, then let them handle themselves.  Libertarians would rather just cut off foreign aid, stop the wars and interventionism unless absolutely necessary, and let everyone else handle themselves, without intervention from us. 

"Does America has a moral obligation to help people whose countries it has messed with in the past?"

Foreign aid won't help.  Invading them and replacing governments might.  Libertarianism might as well, but I'm starting to wonder about it.  Supposedly China is starting increasing freedom, to some extent, but they are still a very oppressive and overall shitty country.  The liberal situation (basically just give them money and help them out in the form of foreign aid) doesn't work for the above mentioned reasons, among other reasons.  Foreign aid- the liberal solution, does NOT work.

"Address stuff like that instead of making up new political factions."

Its been addressed.  Conservatives/libertarians >> liberals is the conclusion.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-23 20:20

"human rights nightmare"?

UM--retard--what country has more citizens, China or the US?

What country has more prisoners?

In conclusion, you're an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-23 20:54

>>11
Are you implying that the simple number of criminals has anything to do with whether the country is a nightmare for human rights? Wow go kill yourself asap.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-25 18:00

>>12

no, u

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-25 20:13

If US wants like that then US wants that. Oh well, US is the new Roman Empire steadily falling.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-25 22:44

>>13
Intelligent reply.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-25 23:21

The China of today IS succeeding to do well for its citizens compared to before. Meh, at least it's not turning countries into terrorist hotbeds.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-26 0:46

>>9
Because democracy is weak and can't make any vital decisions? Who else said that?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-26 8:36

>>14
Yes we are overextending ourselves and our resources.  The War in Iraq = next vietnam

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-26 12:51

China dry-humping on USA's economy? Sounds good to me. I think it's a mutual thing.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-26 13:20

"it is important that we vote to dump foreign aid."

Um, when was the last time you voted on anything like "foreign aid"?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 8:20

>>20
The last election we had.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 13:34

>>21

You don't vote on single issues in "elections," smart guy.  You're _probably_ retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 13:45

By the way, DEATH TO AMERICA

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 17:24

>>21 election by semantic definition. An election it was not.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 18:18

>>22
Yes, but you can vote for candidates who oppose foreign aid, thus indirectly voting against foreign aid, 'smart guy'.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 19:13

Oh, did the original post say "it is important that we indirectly vote to dump foriegn aid"? I must have mis-read it!

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 19:19

because naturally, if a candidate is right on one issue, he's right on every other issue

go democracy go!

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 19:34

what about all the other issues?  we should ignore them and vote for the candidates who promise to "dump foreign aid"?

why?  because you're afraid of the word "socialist"? (like a child who is taught to be afraid of this word and never questions it)

fuck you

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 20:57

>>23
I'd say death to EU(not a country I know), Russia, China and America. I mean taking out only the goverment and capitals. Then ensure that China, EU, Russia and America won't reunite. Small countries for the win!

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 22:27

FTW

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-28 0:05

I'd prefer an enormous tapestry of allied Switzerlands, Norways and Belgiums to a sweeping heavy handed European/US/Russia/Chinese world empire or whatever will happen in the future.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-28 0:23

>>28
The libertarians will dump foreign aid, and they are more or less a good party on the other issues.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-28 0:32

>>32
When the minutemen were risking their lives for the independance of women and children and future americans they never batted an eyelid at the idea that they were making a huge personal sacrifice for other people.

When US soldiers charged the machine guns at Normandy in ww2 and the trenches of ww1, they knew very well they would simply go back home and the liberated French, ass-saved British and even western germany could never repay them the full cost of their efforts.

Now you are sitting here whining about giving cheap ass grain and basic medical supplies to people who would have otherwise lived peaceful constructive lives if it weren't for a bunch of tyrannic assholes storming over the hill, just like the forces of King George who threatenned America with tyranny all those years ago.

All peoples blessed with liberty must do something to help others achieve it or liberty would have never existed in the first place and won't survive the next 100 years either.

Name: Xel 2006-08-28 1:17

>>33 Iraq has little to nothing to do with American liberty, and even if it did the effort has been handled with exemplary shoddiness, incompetence and a whole lot of shady dealings - the executioners should be punished with minute detail by those who care about the nation.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-28 22:09

>>34 Win

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-28 22:54

no u

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-29 0:38

>>33
Can we afford the War in Iraq? Our first priority should be -us-, and the deficit has been doing nothing but grow.  The interest rate on all our borrowed money is ridiculous as well.  I'm beginning to wonder if we are ever gonna go out of debt.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-30 17:24

Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 2:06

>>37
We still think our creditors will be good chums and spot us for a good 100 years.
America is in a load of trouble if any of those nations decide they want to seize assets when America can't pay....

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 4:51

>>38
I blame the government control over money. We need to privatise money. For too long has the government monopolised this vital sector of the economy causing a huge loss of wealth and poverty. The key to eliminating poverty is simply give those in poverty the economic power to get themselves out of poverty. We must lower tax and privatise currency.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 6:26

>>40
Privatised currency would mean that only few would use currency. People would trading with stuff as well as pieces of gold and silver. Not that it would be bad thing. Those things would have real value atleast.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-03 4:18

>>41
A privately owned currency management firm would try to get as many people using it's currency as possible. It would strike a balance through the market economy to find a highly accurate level of inflation, taking into account people's trust in their currency, the media coverage of how many "certificates of value" they produce and how much they need to run the business. Banks would determine the rate of interest by doing heavy research into the economy, to a much higher dgree and with a lot less corruption than the government. Civil servants trying to do this in the government do not get rewarded millions for how well they predict what is best for the country, they get rewarded with bribes for their part in conspiracies by those who wish to leach taxpayer's money through injustice.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 12:00 ID:s//wM4mT

Stupid liberals.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 14:59 ID:IhfQ080w

>>42

Reality doesn't work that way, otherwise you would find a successful nation using the methods that you described.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 15:06 ID:IhfQ080w

>>1

Is China socialist, communist, or fascist? Make up your fucking mind.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 16:20 ID:vqPc3JL+

>>44

Given further thought you would go on to realise that reality doesn't work like that either. If good ideas area always used why didn't the Romans and Chinese have an industrial revolution? It is because good ideas aren't always implemented, therefore whether an idea has been implemented or not is no indication of it's worth.

All that is left in this debate is the proof that it would work, or is at least worth a try on a small scale first. I heard some small town in America has started printing it's own legal tender to keep capital within the community and lots of people are using it because the store owners can evade tax and APR and give a discount. Forgotten the name. Google it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 16:35 ID:w03seNzD

>>33
god, you sound like one of those rednecks that says "They're fighting for are freedom, why are you against freedom?"

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 20:10 ID:3j2kIBWX

If good ideas area always used why didn't the Romans and Chinese have an industrial revolution?
Inadequate technology.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 20:32 ID:IhfQ080w

" If good ideas area always used why didn't the Romans and Chinese have an industrial revolution? It is because good ideas aren't always implemented, therefore whether an idea has been implemented or not is no indication of it's worth."

They're irrelevant because AMERICA HAD ONE.

"All that is left in this debate is the proof that it would work, or is at least worth a try on a small scale first."

Libertarianism isn't new. We had "complete economic freedom" at one point, it was called Laissez-faire. It failed miserably.

About the small town you were referring to, let me know when they are making huge progress or expand into a larger town/small city using Berkshares. Then I'll take you seriously.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 21:13 ID:Heaven

I am against freedom. There. I said it.
Fuck freedom and all it's ambiguous, undefined, buzzword synonyms.
Fuck anyone who thinks they are free because some dick told them they were and will stay free if they mark a ballet for them.

Name: Anonymous 2007-04-14 21:48 ID:s//wM4mT

>>50
"Fuck freedom and all it's ambiguous, undefined, buzzword synonyms."

Fuck you.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List