Audie
Veteran Member
"Appears"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It was 22 years ago today that Clinton was impeached
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
"Appears"
I am the master of not just diplomacy,
but also understatement.
Audie
Veteran Member
I have a PhD in it.
Call me Doctor Sleepsbadly.
Last edited:
We have such a sophisticated legal system that it's
possible that Monica had repeated wild sexual
congress with Bill, but Bill never had sex with her.
My hat is off to the geniuses who created this.
BTW, I calculated a 99.97% probability that Bill
did indeed touch the body parts on the list.
I don't agree that they're comparable.
Lawyers, politicians, and capitalists are just different arms of the same beast. They're not the same as workers. They don't build, create, or produce anything.
History does not agree with your assessment. Historically, government reforms have involved restraining capitalists, such as slaveowners, organized crime, sweatshop owners, robber barons, con artists, slumlords, polluters, etc. The bottom line is that these capitalists would never have stopped these malicious, harmful activities on their own. Government had to intervene to force them to stop.
Yet capitalists act like they're the injured party. They endlessly complain about "Big Gov" coming in and interfering with their profiteering. By definition, governments have to serve the interests of the people, while capitalists do not. The Mafia never had any ethics.
I would consider Obama to be a capitalist. He's the 12th wealthiest president in history: List of presidents of the United States by net worth - Wikipedia
Also, Obamacare proves Obama is pro-capitalist. A socialist president would have supported socialized medicine - a complete government takeover of the healthcare industry. The only reason we don't have that today is because of capitalists and their cronies in government (which would include Obama).
It depends on the country.
I'm not sure of that. Liberals tend to believe that two consenting adults having sex should not be a crime. Conservatives apparently believe otherwise. On the other hand, liberals believe that dishonest shenanigans by business should be a crime, whereas conservatives believe the "free market" should be left alone.
But there was no reason for an investigation of Clinton, at least not for having sex with Monica. There may have been other scandals and reasons to investigate Clinton, but not this one. No crime was committed, therefore no reason for an investigation. (Personally, I think they should have investigated his treasonous support of NAFTA and his betrayal of America's working class.)
Sometimes lawyers do these things, especially if they don't think they have enough to get a conviction on one charge or another. They couldn't get Al Capone on murder, so they went after him for tax evasion instead. It doesn't mean that he wasn't a murderer, but they just couldn't get him on that charge. That's why they engage in plea bargaining.
And workers don't manage or govern anything.
They're the drones who depend on smarter more ambitious folk to
lead them. Even under your vaunted socialism, this division exists.
Things I've built wouldn't exist if I'd depended upon the "workers".
Vision, planning, design, fundraising, & managing are necessary.
This anti-capitalist tirade doesn't change the fact that Clinton
committed crimes that would've been severely punished had
he not wielded great political power.
Also, you've offered no real world alternative to capitalism.
Things have gone very poorly for countries who tried to ditch it.
It's history, bub.
This sounds vaguely similar to Leona Helmsley's remarks about "the little people." Capitalists think they're better human beings than the little people (or "drones" as you call them). This illustrates exactly why capitalism is so odious, since it's based on some people believing that they're better (whether it's due to nature, genetics, or God). It's this mentality which has led to some of the worst atrocities in U.S. history. "Manifest Destiny" in the raw. This is social Darwinism.
Not the same. Socialists don't generally believe in social Darwinism, as capitalists do.
Capitalists are far more dependent upon the workers than the reverse. The workers don't need the capitalists. The capitalists need the workers.
If what you're saying is true, no plantation owner would have complained about the prospect of Abolition, and no factory or mine owner would have complained about labor unions. According to your assertion here, they never needed workers, since all they had to do was "visualize" it and it would have happened automatically.
If you think that's an "anti-capitalist tirade," then you haven't seen anything yet.
The "crime" in question was lying about having sex with Monica, but since having sex with Monica was never a crime to begin with, there was no legal basis for asking the question or conducting an investigation at all.
That's far different from the Stewart case, where a crime of insider trading was definitely committed, leading to the investigation and the question, "Did you do this crime?"
As I've stated numerous times in previous discussions, when Russia ditched capitalism in 1917, conditions in that country vastly improved from what they were. Same for when the Chinese ditched capitalism in 1949. The historical record, "bub," clearly shows that ditching capitalism improves the standard of living in countries. Your only argument is that these countries weren't perfect or not as comfortable as the USA - a country where no armies invaded or a single bomb fell during the World Wars, thanks mainly to the good fortune of having a two-ocean buffer. That's just dumb luck, not anything that can be attributed to an economic system or anything that we intentionally did.
Or maybe it really was Manifest Destiny. Maybe God really exists and He blessed America. That's the only other possible explanation, but it has nothing do with capitalism.
You make it about being better "than".
But that Marxian view isn't useful.
Different people are suited for different functions.
And nothing allocates people & resources better
than does capitalism.
Where is the country that has ditched capitalism,
& is less odious than capitalist ones?
That's like arguing which link in the chain is unnecessary.
Workers would be lost without someone to do the
entrepreneurial & management aspects of economics.
I've employed many workers over the years. Very few
ever start their own business, or rise to managing workers.
For most, it's just not what they can or want to do.
But no matter your low opinion of capitalism, Clinton
still committed crimes worthy of impeachment.
I'm not the one making it about being better than. The key thing about socialism is "From each, according to their abilities. To each, according to their needs." That's why equal compensation is important, since it sends a clear message that everyone is of equal value. Capitalism doesn't work that way. It pays useless people way too much and useful people way too little.
In socialist countries, the managers and workers are paid the same, since both have equal functions. You don't have situations where owners and managers are living in obscene luxury while workers are languishing in starvation and poverty. Capitalism justifies that by way of social Darwinism, the belief that they are better than drones or little people or whatever one wishes to call the working class.
That doesn't matter when determining someone's worth to society or any productive enterprise. Workers are needed just as much as manager, and therefore entitled to equal compensation. Capitalists don't think that, which is why capitalism is odious.
So, having sex is a crime? I guess, technically, adultery is a crime in some jurisdictions, so maybe you have a point. But nothing worthy of a high-level government investigation.
That's part of one socialist theory.
But practice doesn't match theory.
We're getting too far from the OP.
Yeah, although we might agree that both the Clinton scandal and the Martha Stewart thing never would have happened in a socialist country. Any peccadilloes among the top leadership would be hushed up and not reported to the public (unless there was a power struggle and someone wanted him out). And there wouldn't be any insider trading either.
No argument here.
On December 3rd 1999 six firemen were killed fighting a warehouse fire. On December 9, as the search for the bodies (of homeless who were mistakenly believed to be in the warehouse) continued, a memorial service and procession were held in Worcester. The outpouring of shock and grief was immense. Thousands of firefighters from around the country, as well as Canada and Ireland, attended. Dignitaries in attendance included President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. A hypocritical city council refused to allow Clinton so speak.
PureX
Veteran Member
That's because you refuse to understand that a totalitarian dictatorship calling itself "socialist" isn't socialism. Time and time and and time again I hear this constant idiocy from Americans that have been brainwashed by decades of capitalist BS to believe that totalitarian dictatorships masquerading as "communists" and as "socialists" ARE communists and socialists. They aren't. They weren't. They have always been just dictators telling lies.
But yet again you will ignore this, and continue to presume that any, every, and all forms of socialism must result in total dictatorship. And a whole generation of stupid Americans will ape and echo this same dishonest nonsense.
I prefer dictionary definitions to personal ones.
The primary definition from dictionary.com....
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government."
Whether a government is totalitarian or not isn't part of the definition.
Moreover, the poster I was conversing with was opposing capitalism,
& I referred to countries that ditched capitalism. This was the context
for his reference to "socialism".
I hope this addresses your objection.
PureX
Veteran Member
Not even close.
Have you written Merriam Webster or Dictionary.com to correct
them? Apparently all the dictionaries are getting it wrong.
PureX
Veteran Member
I know that when people have to pretend that the dictionary justifies their logic, their "logic" isn't very logical.