America is in trouble..

[PuckOff]

The America first crowd is not going to like this.............

The World's best countries
A Newsweek study of health, education, economy and politics ranks the globes top nations

http://www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/the-world-s-best-countries.html

And to think the teabaggers want even more military spending.

I'm not surprised to see beautiful Canada come in at #5. Good to see, but we still have some work to do to make Canada an even better country.

[brooks85]

well they came in #7. All i had to do was look how they ranked healthcare. They had canada above the US


go ask brock lesnar about that

[Sunde91]

What did you think was going to happen? The system's core function is exploitation.

1) Wrong, capitalism does not have a "function". Capitalism is not some coordinated system that serves some kind of intrinsic purpose. Broken down to its essence, capitalism is based on property rights and voluntary exchange.
2) Definte "exploitation".
3) If you want to get technical, most relationships or exchanges between individuals involve exploitation, i.e. to use for profit or gain. So a child exploits his parents, a wife exploits a husband.
4) You will say "unethical" use for profit. Ok, define unethical. Who determines what's "unethical" if the action is voluntary between individuals.

[DrStale]

Didn't know those were standards or values, let alone having anything to do with what the country was built on.

An unfathomably stupid comment.

Try again to be a witty leftist.

Ok, the witch burning was rare, but everything else was pretty standard. I'm sure you could argue that the founding fathers weren't exactly super pumped about child labor persay, but the country owes a lot of its early economic success to making kids work for next to nothing and having those African folks workin' for free.

I'd say that outlining in the constitution that only white male property owners could vote kind of shows where there priorities were at. So since they only valued the opinions of white men with money, could we not say that this is what they valued? White male property owners? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Team Ramrod]

Indian killing?

Now thats a way to save alot of money.

[DrStale]

Now thats a way to save alot of money.

Is true that if they hadn't left enough alive to give casinos to I'd have more cash.

[wtf]

Didn't know those were standards or values, let alone having anything to do with what the country was built on.

An unfathomably stupid comment.

Try again to be a witty leftist.

this is exactly what all the leftys do, they cheery pick their arguments

I am very surprised he did not bring up nazi's, but I guess he is saving that for his next lame attempt

[DrStale]

this is exactly what all the leftys do, they cheery pick their arguments

I am very surprised he did not bring up nazi's, but I guess he is saving that for his next lame attempt

Feel free to address me directly if you have something to say. I did not bring up the Nazi's because this would clearly be an absolutely ridiculous assertion being that a) America isn't Germany and b) WWII is nowhere near when America was founded. If you have anything actually worth discussing rather than your usual slew of ignorant words thrown together haphazardly, I am all ears. Cheers.

[Sunde91]

Ok, the witch burning was rare, but everything else was pretty standard. I'm sure you could argue that the founding fathers weren't exactly super pumped about child labor persay, but the country owes a lot of its early economic success to making kids work for next to nothing and having those African folks workin' for free.

I'd say that outlining in the constitution that only white male property owners could vote kind of shows where there priorities were at. So since they only valued the opinions of white men with money, could we not say that this is what they valued? White male property owners? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

It's not about what was common, it's about what the country was founded on, as Deuce said in your response to him. I don't know exactly what Deuce was referring to, but witch burnings, slavery, etc. had nothing to do with what the country was founded on.

I would say it was founded on:
1) Liberty, i.e. "freedom from" (freedom from government basically)
2) Freedom in general, i.e. individual/property rights, freedom of press/religion, etc.

But you're right in that the only white male property owners could vote and that freedom and liberty were primarily intended for white male property owners.

If you want to get technical, context and social norms/values mean everything. I really don't think when the founders said "All men are created equal", they had in mind the slaves who were currently in the fields, or Mexicans, or Arabs 200 years down the road, but rather for WASPs, of whom the country was comprised of in the present. I think that statement was more of a denouncement of monarchy too.

I guess the question is: do we take what the constitution/founders said literally or with the context of the time if we want to know what the country was really "founded on".

[Mr Windy City]

America has just become one big consumer. There was a point when good 'old Americans would make cars and boats, help build huge buildings, giving America the beautiful landscape we see everyday. Now all these corporate fucks want to blow off those same good 'ole Americans just so they can save a buck. It's such a shame and I made a promise to myself last month. If we don't die come 2012 and the world doesn't end. I'm moving to another country. I love the USA, it will always be my home, but things are just not the same anymore and I have only been here a very short time. I can only imagine the transgression and changes some have seen in their time. It almost saddens me thinking about how much this country has changed. And not for the better of it's people, but for the better of other countries people and their pockets. Like Deuce said, we have lost focus.

[DrStale]

It's not about what was common, it's about what the country was founded on, as Deuce said in your response to him. I don't know exactly what Deuce was referring to, but witch burnings, slavery, etc. had nothing to do with what the country was founded on.

I would say it was founded on:
1) Liberty, i.e. "freedom from" (freedom from government basically)
2) Freedom in general, i.e. individual/property rights, freedom of press/religion, etc.

But you're right in that the only white male property owners could vote and that freedom and liberty were primarily intended for white male property owners.

If you want to get technical, context and social norms/values mean everything. I really don't think when the founders said "All men are created equal", they had in mind the slaves who were currently in the fields, or Mexicans, or Arabs 200 years down the road, but rather for WASPs, of whom the country was comprised of in the present. I think that statement was more of a denouncement of monarchy too.

I guess the question is: do we take what the constitution/founders said literally or with the context of the time if we want to know what the country was really "founded on".

I guess the gist of my tongue in cheek commentary was that many conservatives tend to look at the founding fathers as the greatest people who ever lived, which they were far from. It's easy to "remembers the good 'ole days" as better than they actually were. Ever since day one of this country there has been a group of people who thought we were completely fvcked, and yet we're still here. There's a hell of a lot of good stuff in the Constitution, there are also stupid things, which is why we needed a Bill of Rights and why we have made 27 amendments to the document that so many people seem to believe is the be-all end-all of American politics. Ain't that simple folks.

Not a chance in hell the founding fathers could have predicted the things we've had to deal with 240 years ago, sometimes you gotta wing it.

[keyboarding]

1) Wrong, capitalism does not have a "function". Capitalism is not some coordinated system that serves some kind of intrinsic purpose. Broken down to its essence, capitalism is based on property rights and voluntary exchange.
2) Definte "exploitation".
3) If you want to get technical, most relationships or exchanges between individuals involve exploitation, i.e. to use for profit or gain. So a child exploits his parents, a wife exploits a husband.
4) You will say "unethical" use for profit. Ok, define unethical. Who determines what's "unethical" if the action is voluntary between individuals.

You're basically babbling about semantics. A system does have a function. You talk about property rights and then deny that exploitation is at its core? I studied the shit for 4 years, you're talking about bullshit. A child exploits his parents?

[Sunde91]

You're basically babbling about semantics. A system does have a function. You talk about property rights and then deny that exploitation is at its core? I studied the shit for 4 years, you're talking about bullshit. A child exploits his parents?

You didn't even define what "exploitation" is and somehow expect me to address the question by inferring your vague presumed meaning of the word...it's essential to clear-up ambiguities, especially when it's attached to anti-capitalist rhetoric, like "exploitation is the core function of capitalism"..

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to avoid exploitation in any exchange, be it economic or social; exploitation is a relative, subjective term.

A capitalist exploits a worker by aiming to pay him as little as possible, while the worker exploits the capitalist by: 1) demanding that the capitalist pay him as much as possible and 2) using the capitalist's capital, i.e. the factory/machines/w/e, to earn a living WITHOUT having to save, defer consumption, go to college, get a degree, and invest in his own business make a living. The capitalist is allowing the worker to use HIS product, HIS property to earn a living; the capitalist owes absolutely nothing to the worker and is not bound to the collective of some socialist state.

The wage or income of an employee is determined by the market. Brett Favre has a 13 million dollar contract, or w/e the fuk, because of the high DEMAND for his work, which, apparently, not too many else can do. A checker at Wal-Mart gets $10 an hour because though the demand for that particular work is low, the unskilled labor supply is relatively high, and as that is an unskilled position that could be filled immediately with little training, the wage is low, but not so low that the worker won't agree to work for it, but high enough for an unskilled worker to consent.

You wil probably cite sweatshops. Ok..if a worker isn't being paid enough or the hours are too long, then 1) demand higher pay or better hours or 2) quit. If not, then obviously the worker is BETTER off working at that job rather than not working at all. If the worker were better off not working there, they wouldn't, period.

No one said capitalism is perfect, but if you somehow think "exploitation" will be eliminated in some socialist utopia, you're kidding yourself, not to mention how individuals become essential slaves to the state without the freedom capitalism offers.

I studied the shit for 4 years

WOW, that just says SO MUCH, you know, considering the political leanings of universities.

to you almighty guru of the supreme university, the omniscient entity and ultimate authority of knowledge

[keyboarding]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ul4C8QtQeAgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=heilbroner+21st&source=bl&ots=SWxYcFVF7j&sig=T0WlOyavRAOwxCapbmJLJMihvuw&hl=en&ei=7m9rTIrfLNOMnQez8aCXAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thank me later.

[flyingillini]

You didn't even define what "exploitation" is and somehow expect me to address the question by inferring your vague presumed meaning of the word...it's essential to clear-up ambiguities, especially when it's attached to anti-capitalist rhetoric, like "exploitation is the core function of capitalism"..

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to avoid exploitation in any exchange, be it economic or social; exploitation is a relative, subjective term.

A capitalist exploits a worker by aiming to pay him as little as possible, while the worker exploits the capitalist by: 1) demanding that the capitalist pay him as much as possible and 2) using the capitalist's capital, i.e. the factory/machines/w/e, to earn a living WITHOUT having to save, defer consumption, go to college, get a degree, and invest in his own business make a living. The capitalist is allowing the worker to use HIS product, HIS property to earn a living; the capitalist owes absolutely nothing to the worker and is not bound to the collective of some socialist state.

The wage or income of an employee is determined by the market. Brett Favre has a 13 million dollar contract, or w/e the fuk, because of the high DEMAND for his work, which, apparently, not too many else can do. A checker at Wal-Mart gets $10 an hour because though the demand for that particular work is low, the unskilled labor supply is relatively high, and as that is an unskilled position that could be filled immediately with little training, the wage is low, but not so low that the worker won't agree to work for it, but high enough for an unskilled worker to consent.

You wil probably cite sweatshops. Ok..if a worker isn't being paid enough or the hours are too long, then 1) demand higher pay or better hours or 2) quit. If not, then obviously the worker is BETTER off working at that job rather than not working at all. If the worker were better off not working there, they wouldn't, period.

No one said capitalism is perfect, but if you somehow think "exploitation" will be eliminated in some socialist utopia, you're kidding yourself, not to mention how individuals become essential slaves to the state without the freedom capitalism offers.



WOW, that just says SO MUCH, you know, considering the political leanings of universities.

to you almighty guru of the supreme university, the omniscient entity and ultimate authority of knowledge

Very sharp post. This gut knows what he is talking about, couldn't of said it better.

[Grandmaster B]

only 9-14 months!

May 21, 2011-October 21, 2011

you're a LOON!

[ronjon619]

only chance is for our country to improve at gambling and win a lot of money

let JJ bet Americas way out of debt. His spreadsheet is so sharp.

[Naz18]

Sunde91 you calling everyone a leftist because they speak the truth...

[Skidcom]

Need a pack of Philosopher Kings.

[buztah]

No cash...

Falling behind in education.

No jobs out there. Most shipping over seas to save a buck or two.

Moral standards in today's youth are atrocious.

We don't look out or help those in need here on our land we call home and the greatest country this world had seen. We worry about other countries first because it's trendy.

We need to help each other and be there for the fallen, the addicts, the homeless.

There needs to be REAL change.

Too many blacks. And now you have one in the White House. What do you expect?

[cornerkick]

Europe is not doing way better, so you're not lagging behind, don't worry

[geebert74]

Amen brother! This is why I want to move to costa rica

[PuckOff]

I don't know exactly what Deuce was referring to, but witch burnings, slavery, etc. had nothing to do with what the country was founded on.

And Deuce is studying to become a lawyer???

[rookie]

I agree with the fact that I get so fukking sick of hearing about us helping other countries, and building this and doing that for them. When half of hour country looks like shit and there are millions of sick and hungry people in our own country. Lets adopt some poor kid from China, even though we have millions of foster kids looking for a home.

There's no such thing as free lunch. Goodwill earned helps the US business interests in these countries as well.
Adoption in the US is an open one: you can not stop the contact between the kid and the blood relations. There are no such hassles if you bring a kid from a faraway land. Also, the adoption process in the US is more cumbersome (and more expensive) as well.

[chaseman]

You're right, we should demolish everything built by white Europeans and hand the land mass of America back to the natvies so they could go back to living as savages.

Because it makes perfect sense and is of the utmost practical relevance to the present to cry about things done 300 years ago when the PRODUCT of those things was the greatest nation in history, of which you have benefited immensely.

We should also give every black 1 million dollars and send them back to Africa, because that's where they came from and it would only be right to bring them back home, right???

OH WAIT, blacks are infinitely better off in the US than in Africa.

to the logic of self-hating leftists

If you think we saved the Native Americans, you're very wrong. If you think we saved the Africans, you're very wrong. I suppose it is typical for the average American to think he/she can decide the fate of an entire population. On what basis is America the "greatest nation in history"?

[Sunde91]

If you think we saved the Native Americans, you're very wrong. If you think we saved the Africans, you're very wrong. I suppose it is typical for the average American to think he/she can decide the fate of an entire population. On what basis is America the "greatest nation in history"?

Never said "we" saved them.

Should have said "was" the greatest nation. I am not at all some nationalist patriotard, honestly don't really care about America, but I think it's essentially true.

It's basically the first country founded on liberty, freedom, representative goverment, etc. The constitution is a ground breaking document, one of the most important/famous in history. The US form of government is one of the most fair, balanced, and efficient governments ever established and has been mimicked countless times by other nations.

Achievements/Innovations speak for themself. Cars, planes, trains, agricultural innovations like the cotton gin, combine, tractor, etc. telegraphs, telephones, morse code, electricity, lightbulb, skyscrappers and other break throughs in modern architecture, radio, TV, computers, internet, cell phone technology, immeasureable contributions to science and medicine, Moon Landing, the highest standard of living in history for most of the 20th century, ON AND ON AND ON..it's really amazing what this country has produced in a little over 200 years.

Today the US is a shithole. It's like the world police now fighting BS wars and trying to save the world, its people are stupid and fat, corrupt/inept BIG government, leftist establishment from the universities to the media to the gov, absurd crime, no morals, ridiculous levels of multiculturalism; Mexicans will be a majority within 75 years, Mexicans who primarily identify with Mexico, even 3rd/4th generation (know firsthand in SoCal)..etc,etc.

Was great while it lasted, but I think a breakdown will happen and there will be civil war.

[PuckOff]

Achievements/Innovations speak for themself. Cars, planes, trains.................... telephones, .................

The telephone was invented in Canada. Not sure if the rest you mentioned were invented in the U.S. or not.