When Colbert really nails it
pr(, . BEA KISSIAH
THAT
sct,
THAT
sct,
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
168 comments displayed.
#143 to #54
-
blehehe (12/06/2014) [-] Hold on, I'm confused by this picture. I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but the bible clearly says "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
So what am I missing here?
So what am I missing here?
#158 to #144
-
anon (12/06/2014) [-]
He accepted the old testament as the God's words. The only people who believe Jesus has no problem with people having homosexual relations, are unfair people who only believe what they want to believe, and if the bible says otherwise, they make up excuses as to not to alter their personal viewpoint.
#154 to #144
-
turtletroll ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] But don't you think that if he thought it was bad he would've spoke against that?
#145 to #143
-
anonymousfinn (12/06/2014) [-]
He wasn't talking about the Bible, he was talking about Jesus. Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality
#21
-
fyaq (12/06/2014) [-] A christian nation?
Where everything remotely religious is considered offensive and stifling, where being atheist and crying about the word god painted on a wall gets you full tuition to the college of your choice, and where christians are demonized as bigots for not supporting homosexuality? Is this the same nation were talking about?
Where everything remotely religious is considered offensive and stifling, where being atheist and crying about the word god painted on a wall gets you full tuition to the college of your choice, and where christians are demonized as bigots for not supporting homosexuality? Is this the same nation were talking about?
#32 to #21
-
houseofbrick (12/06/2014) [-] Go South of the Mason-Dixon Line or to any of the land between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains and everything you just said is invalid.
#35 to #34
-
houseofbrick (12/06/2014) [-] I didn't see it in MY experience, so that makes YOUR experience invalid!
No.
No.
#40 to #35
-
anon (12/06/2014) [-]
This is where you are wrong friend. See, your statement says that if you go south of a certain point everything that was mentioned becomes invalid. This can only be true if, when you go into the aforementioned areas, you find that everything above is not true. Because of this, it should be universally experienced that anyone who goes south will find all these points invalid. If this doesn't happen in a single case then suddenly your point is wrong. IT doesn't take a thousand examples to disprove something. It takes one. To take your other point into consideration...it being common, and it being the rule are entirely different things. Implying it is the rule is not the same as implying it is common. You implied it was the rule, and only changed that in the later comment.
#41 to #40
-
houseofbrick (12/06/2014) [-] I only read your first sentence and I hope you forgive me, but I realized that I was being kind of a faggot and forgot that I called his argument invalid. So, my apologies to fyaq for seeming like a bigger prick than I intended to.
#37 to #36
-
houseofbrick (12/06/2014) [-] the italics was my interpretation of the implied argument you gave. I didn't want to use le funneh mee-mee arrows because it doesn't do anything outside of the chans.
I was saying that your experience, while valid, is not the only example of what it's like in the world and that the opposite is actually fairly common. This comes from 12 years of Florida living and a lot of commute through the South.
I was saying that your experience, while valid, is not the only example of what it's like in the world and that the opposite is actually fairly common. This comes from 12 years of Florida living and a lot of commute through the South.
#95 to #21
-
captnnorway ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Doesn't you guys say something like "One nation under god. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all " or something every day at the start of school. That's clearly a sign that you're in a "Christian Nation"
#98 to #21
-
elenalkarnur (12/06/2014) [-] I'm an atheist and I thank you for this post.
In their desire to become more mainstream/accepted / less demonized, atheists have allowed liberalism to hijack atheism and now liberalism uses it for its own purposes.
But the dogmas of liberalism are no less dogmatic for being non-theistic.
Again, thank you based Christian.
In their desire to become more mainstream/accepted / less demonized, atheists have allowed liberalism to hijack atheism and now liberalism uses it for its own purposes.
But the dogmas of liberalism are no less dogmatic for being non-theistic.
Again, thank you based Christian.
#146 to #21
-
theblacksheep (12/06/2014) [-] Out of curiosity is there an actual story behind the free tuition part. I've never heard of that.
#65 to #21
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] The nation where 40% of people think that the biblical story of creation is actually true. The nation where over 70% of people think Jesus and his dad are real and you don't have to pay taxes if you call yourself 'reverend' and charge people cash for listening to you ramble on about bronze/iron age myths and pretend that they are real. The nation where in politics you essentially have to be a Christian or you can't get elected.
That one.
That one.
#24 to #21
-
mapleknight (12/06/2014) [-] I know this is going to be a ********* of red thumbs, but I'm with you.
You're right.
You're right.
#85 to #39
-
fuckyosixtyminutes (12/06/2014) [-]
That does not mean the nation as a unit is Christian. It's not a White nation after all and that's a majority, whereas some qualities can be attributed to the nation, such as English-speaking even though not every single person speaks English.
#66 to #42
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] The reasons that Atheists are winning these court cases is because the Christians have acted in unconstitutional ways by getting tax money spent on religious imagery on public property. They're not being 'demonized', they are getting the law handed to them.
#107 to #42
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] Probably because it's a violation of the constitution you idiot.
#43 to #42
-
Endofzeeworld ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
Gallup done 2 years ago, not quite recent, but still better.
I could not find cases involving religious symbols on either side. If you could present them, I will amend my opinion.
Gallup done 2 years ago, not quite recent, but still better.
I could not find cases involving religious symbols on either side. If you could present them, I will amend my opinion.
#45 to #44
-
Endofzeeworld ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Honestly, I'm in favor of removing the banner. The other **** you mentioned, no. She is no hero.
Then again I think the pledge of allegiance is vile and pointless, but that's just my opinion.
I definitely see your point, our society does tend toward these sorts of actions, but I think that's a result of our awful media industry, rather than a statement on the nation as a whole.
Then again I think the pledge of allegiance is vile and pointless, but that's just my opinion.
I definitely see your point, our society does tend toward these sorts of actions, but I think that's a result of our awful media industry, rather than a statement on the nation as a whole.
#47 to #46
-
Endofzeeworld ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Had I been able to vote, I would have picked Obama over Romeny 9 times out of ten. While I intially liked McCain, he became a toxic sockpuppet too quickly.
Give me a bought democrat over a bought republican any day.
I would prefer a good solid conservative like either of the Pauls, Chris Christie, or Mike Huckabee.
While the Ferguson riots are ******** , I am in all favor of cameras on cops, just so we can end this sort of ******** on both side, both false force abuse accusations and real use of excessive force.
Give me a bought democrat over a bought republican any day.
I would prefer a good solid conservative like either of the Pauls, Chris Christie, or Mike Huckabee.
While the Ferguson riots are ******** , I am in all favor of cameras on cops, just so we can end this sort of ******** on both side, both false force abuse accusations and real use of excessive force.
#51 to #47
-
MrDeadiron (12/06/2014) [-] Please Democrats are just as bad as republicans, the only difference is that the Democrats pretend to be for people and minorities.
#53 to #51
-
Endofzeeworld ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Yes, and because they pretend, their corruption of the system is necessarily slower.
#55 to #53
-
MrDeadiron (12/06/2014) [-] You can't be serious. It's the opposite dude, minorities and bleeding hearts will vote en mass for people like that and they're policies and corruption spread further and faster.
Don't take me for right wing either, I believe large political parties are awful.
Don't take me for right wing either, I believe large political parties are awful.
#67 to #46
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] Teaching children that ancient fairy tales are real is what makes the US awful.
#29 to #21
-
merrymarvelite (12/06/2014) [-] It's not supposed to be a Christian nation but many of it's inhabitants think it is.
#113 to #30
-
internetexplain (12/06/2014) [-] that's because the people who founded it were Puritans , the christian equivalent of the taliban.
#159 to #113
-
godofcorndog (12/06/2014) [-] If you mean the founding fathers, they were not Puritans. They were Deists, Theists, Atheist, and a few Christians.
#160 to #159
-
internetexplain (12/06/2014) [-] no , and theist means they believe in god , which at the time , renders them christian by default , since they only knew the judeo-christian god.
I mean the first ******* settlers.
I mean the first ******* settlers.
#165 to #160
-
godofcorndog (12/06/2014) [-] Theist means that you believe in -a- god if you want to get into semantics. And the first settlers had nothing to do with how the nation would be known as a 'Christian' nation. Thousands of other settlers came in after they did. Quakers, Angelican, Calvinists, while all being different flavors of Christians, they all had their own sects.
#166 to #165
-
internetexplain (12/06/2014) [-] puritans are extremist anglicans, in fact almost every christian from britain is anglican , be it a branch or the main , it doesnt matter
#151 to #29
-
instalation (12/06/2014) [-] I would like to believe he's talking to a specific group of people this time.
#12 to #9
-
technoshaman (12/05/2014) [-] No, the bible says just that. Jesus is literally God. It's complicated, but that's how it works in Christianity.
#75 to #12
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] Yet Jesus is talking to himself when he's on the cross and asking why has he forsaken himself. That's an 'all knowing' god right there....
#118 to #75
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] God sacrificed him to himself so he could undo something that God himself had done earlier.
Convoluted doesn't even begin to describe this **** .
Convoluted doesn't even begin to describe this **** .
#120 to #118
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] Religious indoctrination is a powerful poison indeed. There's no way anyone would believe this crap if it weren't burnt into their psyches.
#59 to #9
-
jaggedherp (12/06/2014) [-] Jesus is god, the holy ghost spirit, whichever translation , and a separate person at the same time. Kinda hard to visualize.
#117 to #59
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] "Jesus is god"
X is Y
"and a separate person at the same time."
X is also =/= Y
Your religion makes no sense.
X is Y
"and a separate person at the same time."
X is also =/= Y
Your religion makes no sense.
#73 to #62
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] Did you know that that YHWH, the god of the bible, was originally one of the children of the Canaanite god El?
#76 to #74
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] Why is there no evidence for your god or any of the other several thousand? Do you think it might be because they are myths that have been invented by people in ignorant times to explain things that they could not rationality understand?
#79 to #78
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] I didn't say nor imply that I didn't accept that people believe different things. That much is obvious. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support the oft made claim that the bible is real. Just believing something is true does not make it so.
#81 to #80
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] It's great to see that you can defend your religious position so well, 'bruv'.
#83 to #82
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] 'Try to be able to catch indirect more clearly in the future '. Nice grammar.
When you talk to the fairies do they sometimes talk back?
When you talk to the fairies do they sometimes talk back?
#33 to #9
-
houseofbrick (12/06/2014) [-] different interpretations. Catholicism teaches that the Trinity are separate entities, but part of the same whole. It's a little complicated.
#119 to #77
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] How's that relevant in this discussion=
Plasticcup is stating it as a fact that God =/= Jesus, whereas Bible (the user) is stating that some people believe differently.
If anything, you should be asking plasticcup for proof.
Plasticcup is stating it as a fact that God =/= Jesus, whereas Bible (the user) is stating that some people believe differently.
If anything, you should be asking plasticcup for proof.
#124 to #119
-
plasticcup (12/06/2014) [-] I'm no minister but im my christian faith, Jesus is but a man, a holy man. And god the Creator has told us to worship jesus and to Worship the Father. And such and such.
To us there is no holy trinity. and jesus never became a god. He just ascended to heaven and is has a place beside the father.
Something like that. but im no minister. www.incmedia.org/ <you can check this website for info is some people are willing i guess.
Im not here to force my religion.
To us there is no holy trinity. and jesus never became a god. He just ascended to heaven and is has a place beside the father.
Something like that. but im no minister. www.incmedia.org/ <you can check this website for info is some people are willing i guess.
Im not here to force my religion.
#126 to #124
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] That's all well and fine, just make sure your statement is "This is what we believe" instead of "This is how it is".
Such as how you put it in this reply
Such as how you put it in this reply
#128 to #126
-
plasticcup (12/06/2014) [-] okay my bad, but most folks should already know it's just my opinion.
It's cause i have swag and jesus.
It's cause i have swag and jesus.
#129 to #128
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] Well I don't know you, and I often see people preaching their faith as cold, hard facts.
#130 to #129
-
plasticcup (12/06/2014) [-] I should have hard faith in my religion, but honestly seeing science and space and planets. It makes me really think if Aliens do exist and it's coming pretty damn close.
Religion on this planet is just pointless to other world creatures. Jesus would literally have nothing to do with aliens unless that's what he is doing right now.. Saving Aliens.
Religion on this planet is just pointless to other world creatures. Jesus would literally have nothing to do with aliens unless that's what he is doing right now.. Saving Aliens.
#132 to #130
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] Keep an open mind, question everything. If it leads you to be more religious, neat. If it means less religious, that's neat too. The important thing isn't what you believe, but rather why you believe it.
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see how the various religions would deal with the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see how the various religions would deal with the existence of extraterrestrial life.
#133 to #132
-
plasticcup (12/06/2014) [-] If they start attacking them and calling them the devils creations (like with gay people)
Then that proves religion is wrong. But until then. We await the discovery.
Then that proves religion is wrong. But until then. We await the discovery.
#134 to #133
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] I heard the catholic church is willing to convert intelligent aliens (or at least try)
Why would that prove religion wrong?
Why would that prove religion wrong?
#137 to #134
-
plasticcup (12/06/2014) [-] For one, our religion would have no part in alien life. Even the creation of our entire human being would be no part of their existence (assuming).
and if stating right off the bat that they are to be the spawn of satan (when announced by the administration of a church) Then ya i would say they are kinda just ******* us over this whole time.
Jesus was the one that sacrificed his life for the people. But i don't think he sacrificed for the klingons. So i don't know. The spiritual aspect of being good to people is there and I think religion is there to remind us that. But since nobody goes to church as often as they use to, everyone including myself tend to hurt and get hurt but feel good about it at the same time.
but at of this moment. Everyone in my religion are quite nice people. I would say im the only one in the entire religion who hates people. and i blame Internet.
But that's just me ranting and these are just my shower thoughts so i don't really know.
and if stating right off the bat that they are to be the spawn of satan (when announced by the administration of a church) Then ya i would say they are kinda just ******* us over this whole time.
Jesus was the one that sacrificed his life for the people. But i don't think he sacrificed for the klingons. So i don't know. The spiritual aspect of being good to people is there and I think religion is there to remind us that. But since nobody goes to church as often as they use to, everyone including myself tend to hurt and get hurt but feel good about it at the same time.
but at of this moment. Everyone in my religion are quite nice people. I would say im the only one in the entire religion who hates people. and i blame Internet.
But that's just me ranting and these are just my shower thoughts so i don't really know.
#138 to #137
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] I gotta go now but I'll come back later so we can continue the discussion.
#11 to #8
-
feelythefeel (12/05/2014) [-] "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."
1 John 4:15, King James version.
1 John 4:15, King James version.
#121 to #31
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] As I understand it, the anon is implying that the part you quoted does not actually say that Jesus isn't God.
#174 to #121
-
feelythefeel (12/07/2014) [-] You're right, it doesn't imply it.
It directly says it.
It directly says it.
#71 to #3
-
popeflatus (12/06/2014) [-] So true. It's almost amazing how so many people can be tricked into believing fairy tales are actually real.
#16 to #2
-
Sethorein (12/06/2014) [-] ummm but what about pre-regulation america where steel magnates practically treated their workers like slaves?
I think our friend, Milton may need some education on the history of free market and why a self regulated market is incredibly susceptible to monopolization...
I think our friend, Milton may need some education on the history of free market and why a self regulated market is incredibly susceptible to monopolization...
#22 to #16
-
economicfreedom (12/06/2014) [-] 
You mean that time when America faced the greatest economic expansion and the greatest improvement in the lives of ordinary people the world had ever seen? Compared to today life would've been harder, but back then America was one of the best places to be. It was the land of opportunity. MILLIONS of immigrants came to America during that time because it was better than everywhere else.
America today is an embarrassment compared to its former glory.
#92 to #22
-
Sethorein (12/06/2014) [-] Misattribution of source my friend. America expanded so much because there was so much frontier to expand into. A rich, bountiful, land that hadn't been touched by industry at all. Of course the frontier days would be the time of greatest expansion. That wasn't because of steel magnates and their olligopalies that refused to treat their workers like human beings. My favourite thing about these magnates was when they badgered employees into signing contracts that limited their rights horribly in exchange for employment. They thought they were defending freedom if you could believe it. "WE ARE ALLOWING THESE MEN TO CHOOSE TO BE SLAVES OR DIE IN ABJECT POVERTY" they would cry without the slightest hint of irony.
Never has the fight for workers' rights been so unconcerned with workers' rights.
Never has the fight for workers' rights been so unconcerned with workers' rights.
#18 to #17
-
Sethorein (12/06/2014) [-] You're always free to enter, but the big guys can very effectively **** on your ability to market yourself or succeed in places where they have control.
Think the net neutrality debate. Big companies are trying to limit the capacity of new companies to compete with them because just trying to start a new venture is going to cost much more if you'd want a decent chance of competing.
Then think of Air Canada. It's a ****** ******* Airline, but it's one of the only ones in Canada. Why? whenever Jet blue tries to come in, Air canada drops ticket prices by like, 50%, until jet blue is forced to leave.
Then, recall, as I mentioned before, the old steel magnates. Not only did that more or less form an olligarchy of economical monarchs, controlling their prices to maintain their massive control at the expense of competition, but they also treated workers like slaves. They paid people in ******* commodity stubs for their own bloody products! And you may say "well a new company can just pay them a wage and the workers will leave", but like I said, these magnates completely controlled the industry in order to stifle competition. The only way they surrender control is by dying and leaving their business to incompetents.
Think the net neutrality debate. Big companies are trying to limit the capacity of new companies to compete with them because just trying to start a new venture is going to cost much more if you'd want a decent chance of competing.
Then think of Air Canada. It's a ****** ******* Airline, but it's one of the only ones in Canada. Why? whenever Jet blue tries to come in, Air canada drops ticket prices by like, 50%, until jet blue is forced to leave.
Then, recall, as I mentioned before, the old steel magnates. Not only did that more or less form an olligarchy of economical monarchs, controlling their prices to maintain their massive control at the expense of competition, but they also treated workers like slaves. They paid people in ******* commodity stubs for their own bloody products! And you may say "well a new company can just pay them a wage and the workers will leave", but like I said, these magnates completely controlled the industry in order to stifle competition. The only way they surrender control is by dying and leaving their business to incompetents.
#103 to #18
-
angelusprimus (12/06/2014) [-] How dare you use historical examples and facts against free market religion.
You are a heretic and should be burned!
You are a heretic and should be burned!
#28 to #2
-
turtletroll ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Funny how when Britain was ruled by a right wing conservative it went to **** so quick. The healthcare system was non existent, schools were practically falling apart, people got paid so little because of no minimum wage.
You can't trust huge businesses to not want to make money at the expense of everyone else
You can't trust huge businesses to not want to make money at the expense of everyone else
#97 to #28
-
doctorhotspur (12/06/2014) [-]
Conversely, there was that time when the unions got so powerful that even the dead weren't being buried. Don't want to start a massive Thatcherism/not discussion, just want to say that, in my opinion, it may be possible to go too far the other way as well.
#150 to #97
-
turtletroll ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] Yeah it totally is possible to go to far left. And it's happened here before.
But economic freedom isn't the way forward like this guy thinks
But economic freedom isn't the way forward like this guy thinks
#102 to #97
-
angelusprimus (12/06/2014) [-] No, you are right.
Things work best in the balance.
Right gets too strong, things go to **** .
Left gets too strong, things go to **** .
If laws carefully balance public good and private enterprise, everyone benefits. If they favor either side too much for a while it works but it always comes crashing down.
Things work best in the balance.
Right gets too strong, things go to **** .
Left gets too strong, things go to **** .
If laws carefully balance public good and private enterprise, everyone benefits. If they favor either side too much for a while it works but it always comes crashing down.
#10 to #2
-
muileach (12/05/2014) [-]
free market neoliberalism has lead to the biggest financial crisis the world has ever seen, our current system can be accurately described as "Zombie Neoliberism" as we know it doesn't work but haven't come up with a better system. Many of the great economists of the past have retracted their statements on the glory of neoliberism, though i cannot be sure about Milton Friedman as i am not familiar with his more recent work.
#23 to #10
-
jakatackka (12/06/2014) [-]
On a similar note, it's kinda funny that many (probably most) people who believe in eliminating government handouts are people who have never had to rely on them for survival.
#27 to #23
-
economicfreedom (12/06/2014) [-] 
Our current government welfare programs quite literally penalize people who work; it is a train wreck. Also, he doesn't advocate flat out removing all government programs; he's not cruel. Incidentally, this vid is the source of the quote I posted.
#94 to #27
-
gerfox (12/06/2014) [-]
Liberalism in the economy is a trainwreck tho. Sure, it might seem good on paper, but when **** start hitting the fan it spread EVERYWHERE. No single idea should be applied to a nations economy imo. Why bet on one horse when you can mix it up and bet on several and limit your losses? The Nordic model is a prime example of this, combining a free market economy with state ownership of some businesses and a welfare state. Since the nations who use it first started applying it in the fifties they have gone from being poor states to rich, free and solid. Only Iceland was destroyed by the economic crisis (and only because of their retarded banking system), while in most other countries with this model they continued to grow, or started to grow again really fast.
#112 to #94
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] Fallacy of the middle ground. Mixed economies have been large failures in most european countries and in america. Sole reason scandinavian countries succeed is because largely the economy is free and because they have a lot of resources to back them up. (Norway and oil)
#131 to #112
-
gerfox (12/06/2014) [-]
Norway is the only Scandinavian country with a huge amount of natural resources. It does not apply for Finland, Sweden and Denmark - three of the most succesful countries socially and economically in the world.
Mixed economies have been large failures? Germany is one of the leading economical powers in the world, with a mixed economy, and all the Nordic countries are extremely succesful in all categories based on per capita. There are other reasons why the economy of for instance Greece, France, Italy and Spain more or less failed during the financial crisis. Anyway, the German model (which is almost similar to the Nordic model) and the Nordic models have been huge successes in every country it has been applied to.
Fallacy of the middle ground? There's fallacy everywhere, and no economic model is perfect - however, the most succesful in the world today is the Nordic model
Mixed economies have been large failures? Germany is one of the leading economical powers in the world, with a mixed economy, and all the Nordic countries are extremely succesful in all categories based on per capita. There are other reasons why the economy of for instance Greece, France, Italy and Spain more or less failed during the financial crisis. Anyway, the German model (which is almost similar to the Nordic model) and the Nordic models have been huge successes in every country it has been applied to.
Fallacy of the middle ground? There's fallacy everywhere, and no economic model is perfect - however, the most succesful in the world today is the Nordic model
#135 to #131
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] For every "successful" country with a mixed economy there are dozens of failures. Every single European country that has been crushed by the crisis are thanks to mixed economies.
The nordic model is not just a mixed economy, it's a largely free market economy, a few regulations doesn't make it fully mixed. In fact nordic countries rank among the freest economies along with Hong Kong and Singapore two far more succesful economic master nations which are based on free markets.
Face it, the reason most of the nordic countries where successful is because of it's economic freedom, it's failures are largely attributed to socialist policies and government intervention.
The reason why Greece, Italy, US and other failures of countries fail is precisely because of keynesian third way mixed economies. And if Germany continues to implement government intervention their economic boom will collapse like a bubble just like the other european countries that rely on mixed economy.
The nordic model is not just a mixed economy, it's a largely free market economy, a few regulations doesn't make it fully mixed. In fact nordic countries rank among the freest economies along with Hong Kong and Singapore two far more succesful economic master nations which are based on free markets.
Face it, the reason most of the nordic countries where successful is because of it's economic freedom, it's failures are largely attributed to socialist policies and government intervention.
The reason why Greece, Italy, US and other failures of countries fail is precisely because of keynesian third way mixed economies. And if Germany continues to implement government intervention their economic boom will collapse like a bubble just like the other european countries that rely on mixed economy.
#157 to #135
-
gerfox (12/06/2014) [-]
The reason why Greece, Italy and Spain collapsed are mostly due to incompetent politicians who implemented unsustainable changes and an economy mostly based on agriculture. I don't think Germany will collapse either way. Their industry is so robust, and can compete with everyone around the world despite of higher wages. Except of that I guess I'll have to agree with you.
#26 to #10
-
economicfreedom (12/06/2014) [-] 
Only not. The federal reserve, a government (sort of) institution, allowed widespread bank failures with collapsed the money supply which lead to rampant deflation. People can't spend money when there's no money to spend. That is what lead to the depression.
#56 to #26
-
muileach (12/06/2014) [-]
ohh i was talking about the recent banking crisis where the reckless (some might say feckless) and poorly regulated lending of money lead not only to the banking crisis and the resulting nationalization of several large financial institutions in the UK, but i would argue led to the bursting of the housing market. The resulting meltdown created a meltdown in our financial systems that is still an issue today. I think id attribute this poor regulation, in part to the free market neolibralist agenda pushed through by the frankly monstrous Reagan/Thatcher duo. I would also contest that this more recent crisis is worse than the great depression in monitory value even with inflation taken into account.
#169 to #111
-
muileach (12/06/2014) [-]
I think we are both talking about different schools of thought when it comes to economics, you seem to be looking at predominately american examples, im afraid that i have n knowledge of american economics which is probably allot to do with our differing opinions. I'm talking about the economics of Britain which is a much different beast! I urge you to look at the movement of neolibrilism and how it is affected america.
Also I'm glad to have found a platform that we can all have a rational debate on the internet, I'm very new to funnyjunk but i love it!
wising you all a great day from scotland!
Also I'm glad to have found a platform that we can all have a rational debate on the internet, I'm very new to funnyjunk but i love it!
wising you all a great day from scotland!
#170 to #169
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] What Thatcher and Reagan did was faaar different from what neoliberalism actually is like the neoliberalism Friedrich Hayek proposed. Neoliberals support a return to classical liberal economics where as Thatcherism was far away from classically liberal.
#104 to #10
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] Actually the big financial collapses are mainly thanks to keynesian capitalism. Do your research.
#110 to #108
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] "The new right argued that competition and unrestrained selfishness was of benefit to
the whole society in capitalist societies"
>Unrestrained selfishness
That's not the words an academic paper uses, that's a blatant opinion piece from someone who clearly doesn't understand how a free market works.
The crisis was caused by a housing bubble enforced by government intervention and keynesian policies, Austrian economists where the only ones who predicted this. mises.org/library/americas-unsustainable-boom
the whole society in capitalist societies"
>Unrestrained selfishness
That's not the words an academic paper uses, that's a blatant opinion piece from someone who clearly doesn't understand how a free market works.
The crisis was caused by a housing bubble enforced by government intervention and keynesian policies, Austrian economists where the only ones who predicted this. mises.org/library/americas-unsustainable-boom
#142 to #10
-
feudd (12/06/2014) [-] There are various problems that caused the crisis, but it was not neoliberalism. If any philosophy is going to be blamed, then we could blame Keynsianism for arguing that monetary and fiscal policy are cures that we can rely on when things go bad. He shifted the focus to 'how to fix broken things' rather than focusing on building a sustainable economy. As a result governments over-interpreted this into meaning that they could recover from almost any crisis, and this is evident from most of the economic thinking before the recession. They allowed a bubble to be formed, through low interest rates (keynsian), subsidising risk (by guaranteeing bailout) and by shifting much of investment into the unregulable shadow banking sector through poorly thought out inefficient regulations. Neoliberal economists like Hayek warned that the most dangerous economic consequence isn't the recession, but the boom, and the bigger the boom the worse the downturn. If they had their say, policy would have been far tighter.
If we are going to blame anything, I would blame those that adopted the pseudo creed of neoliberaism as an excuse to support corporatism, and gain support from the government. They warped it into a different message and told people that the biggest economists supported them filling their pockets. This was absolutely not the case, but hey now people see it as true, and believe it. There goes the power of propaganda
If we are going to blame anything, I would blame those that adopted the pseudo creed of neoliberaism as an excuse to support corporatism, and gain support from the government. They warped it into a different message and told people that the biggest economists supported them filling their pockets. This was absolutely not the case, but hey now people see it as true, and believe it. There goes the power of propaganda
#105 to #10
-
kanadetenshi (12/06/2014) [-] Also the current system doesn't even come remotely close to neoliberalism. It's the very opposite. Government holds a big monopoly on the economy and America ranks very low on the economic scale. If you want a real example of a free market look at Singapore.
#15
-
anon (12/05/2014) [-]
Well the idea is that you help the poor willingly, not that you are forced to by the government. It doesn't accomplish the christian goal if you are helping because you have to. It only does if everyone start to choose to help the homeless.
#155 to #15
-
kingpongthedon ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-]
America is a democracy. Government policies are supposedly an extension of the will of the people.
#84
-
freedombirdman (12/06/2014) [-] We have no problem with charity.
We have a problem when the government takes our money in the name of charity, then uses it to support entitled slobs, cater to corporate interests, and line their own pockets.
We have a problem when the government takes our money in the name of charity, then uses it to support entitled slobs, cater to corporate interests, and line their own pockets.
#96
-
thatbrevitything (12/06/2014) [-] As a french studying economics it's always fun to read the comments with people actually defending the very harsh economic policies that were done in the middle of the 80s until today.
The problem of the redistribution of wealth is very hot debate in the USA because for the past 30 years, the top 10% and 1% had so much revenue they have a capital accumulation that is equal to the beginning of the 20th century. Is it bad ? You might defend it saying they "deserve it" and that's totally fine but the fact is that, as a society, such strong inequalities are actually harmful for the economy and the country. I suggest you look more into Piketty's book about the capital in the XXIth century. I've heard it had a big success in the USA.
The problem of the redistribution of wealth is very hot debate in the USA because for the past 30 years, the top 10% and 1% had so much revenue they have a capital accumulation that is equal to the beginning of the 20th century. Is it bad ? You might defend it saying they "deserve it" and that's totally fine but the fact is that, as a society, such strong inequalities are actually harmful for the economy and the country. I suggest you look more into Piketty's book about the capital in the XXIth century. I've heard it had a big success in the USA.
#115
-
testaburger (12/06/2014) [-] USA: Secular nation - mostly christians
Denmark: Christian nation - mostly atheists
Denmark: Christian nation - mostly atheists
#90
-
ddoggdiggity (12/06/2014) [-] Misery loves company and well the whole world is gonna prolly react the same way sucks neh
#87
-
mrforte (12/06/2014) [-] I would just like to post this in response to 90% of the comments on this page...
#147
-
TheFek (12/06/2014) [-] Jesus told YOU to help the poor. He didn't say "go forth and create laws that steal from people in order to help the poor"
#141
-
anon (12/06/2014) [-]
US has fell to **** ever since God was taken out of the picture.. and i'm not even religious. there is no denying this fact
#123
-
anon (12/06/2014) [-]
Except for the part where Obama made it a point to say that America isn't a christian nation.
#109
-
payseht ONLINE (12/06/2014) [-] I religiously followed this show up until Anita Sarkeesian was a guest... lost all faith after that...
I believe there are scenes not included but what I've seen was enough to make me lose all respect towards this man and the crew. The show is normally incredibly documented, able to pull out their asses seconds from a speech several years ago, but somehow have a guest guilty of all the things they accuse other people...
I believe there are scenes not included but what I've seen was enough to make me lose all respect towards this man and the crew. The show is normally incredibly documented, able to pull out their asses seconds from a speech several years ago, but somehow have a guest guilty of all the things they accuse other people...
#89
-
snood (12/06/2014) [-] Individual people should be generous, maybe if we did more of that i wouldn't have to pay huge taxes to feed welfare queens.
that kinda sounds ignorant but left me clarify: If people saw that their money was being given by an individual person working a real job instead of a system, maybe they'd be less willing to cheat the person than the system.
I mean paying taxes isn't even generous, it's a law, if you want to be generous you give out of your pocket.
so i feel like colbert is mixing apples with oranges here.
that kinda sounds ignorant but left me clarify: If people saw that their money was being given by an individual person working a real job instead of a system, maybe they'd be less willing to cheat the person than the system.
I mean paying taxes isn't even generous, it's a law, if you want to be generous you give out of your pocket.
so i feel like colbert is mixing apples with oranges here.
