nkb said:
nsxr1,
Your statements amuse me. This may not be accurate in your case, but you remind me of many people I have met, that have never lived anywhere but in the US, yet insist that there is no better place on Earth.
I have news for you, America is not the only place where capitalism is practiced successfully, far from it. And the attitude that we are the only hope for the rest of the world is part of what makes others dislike us Americans. It is unfathomable to some people that there may more than one correct way.
That’s OK, you’re just confused. As a matter of fact, I have lived a total of four years in two different foreign countries (one Asian, one European). I have also traveled extensively, mostly throughout Europe. There is absolutely no doubt that the United States is the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of humankind. Of course there are many other present-day countries that also have vibrant economies, free and open societies, and a high standard of living, but every single one of them owes their economic successes and freedoms to the U.S., either directly or indirectly. Since WWII, when the American worker and the American soldier combined to almost single-handedly save the world from totalitarianism, the United States has been the source of political freedom and economic prosperity for the world. It is precisely this that breeds resentment of the U.S., particularly in Europe. To put it simply, their nationalistic egos are bruised by our political and cultural dominance. Of course, their constant criticism of everything we do does not deter them from emulating us in almost every way. I have seen firsthand how the typical European (especially in southern Europe) criticizes us at every opportunity while at the same time adopting and enjoying the American way of life.
No one with any common sense claims that the American way is the only conceivable way of doing things. But I live in the real world, not some hypothetical utopian La La Land. And in the real world, the American form of government and the capitalist free market economy are the best systems devised by man so far. If you have come up with something better, by all means share it with us.
And along that same line, your comments beg the usual question: If you know of a better country on the face of the Earth in which to live, why are you still living in the United States? As a U.S. citizen, you have the rare privilege of not only expressing your opinions publicly but also of leaving your country anytime you feel like it.
nkb said:
And, of course, I love the statement that someone's opinions are always wrong. How can opinions be wrong? Can you give us specific examples of which opinions are wrong, in Moore's case?
You must be joking. There was a time not that long ago when most people were of the opinion that the Earth was flat. Were they wrong? You're confusing the right to hold an opinion with the accuracy of the opinion. You're also confusing opinions on subjective matters (e.g. "That painting is beautiful") with opinions on objective matters (e.g. Michael Moore's assertion that life for the Iraqi people was just great under Saddam Hussein's rule). The first can never be proven nor disproven by facts. The second most certainly can.
The list of false assertions by Mr. Moore is overwhelming. It seems the pathetic slob can hardly open his mouth without uttering one. Here are a few articles that sum up Michael Moore pretty well…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/6/102551.shtml
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14378134&method=full&siteid=50143
http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf
nkb said:
Also, socialism is a political system, while capitalism is an economic one. They are not mutually exclusive.
Wrong. Socialism is also essentially an economic system, and it is pretty much diametrically opposed to capitalism. Capitalism operates on the fundamental principles of private ownership and a free market. The individual works for his/her own private betterment, and wealth accumulates as the free market allows. Under capitalism there are no artificial limits placed on how much private wealth one can accumulate through one’s own industry and efforts. Socialism is the absolute opposite – individuals work for the betterment of society as a whole, and not for personal gain. The state holds and controls all wealth and goods, as well as means of production, and redistributes wealth and goods equally regardless of individual talent or work.
It’s true that they are not mutually exclusive in the sense that neither system exists in it’s pure form in the real world. The closest thing to Socialism is found in Communist states, where accumulation of wealth is permitted but is based on political connections. Our capitalist free market system has socialist components, such as income/sales taxes and government entitlement programs.
The basic tenets of socialism would seem to make sense to the casual observer. Who can argue with touchy-feely ideals such as the government providing everyone with the basic necessities of life? In practice, however, socialism fails miserably because it robs human beings of a very essential thing – hope for a better tomorrow. When you know that no matter what you do or how hard you work you are not going to get ahead of the guy that does nothing, you lose all incentive to achieve. In contrast, capitalism – or at least the somewhat modified form of it that we have here in the U.S. – has been the engine of progress for the world. Socialist countries will never compete successfully with capitalist countries, and the more socialist they are, the more doomed to failure they are. The former Soviet Union is the poster child for this.
nkb said:
A lot of people don't agree with tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the federal budget. Others believe these tax cuts will stimulate the economy.
It is an indisputable fact that tax cuts stimulate the economy. And Bush’s tax cuts were not exclusively for the rich as you imply – they were across the board. I suppose you think it would be better to give tax breaks only to the poor and middle class? That is called “redistribution of wealth” by the government. The fact is that government already engages in too much of that by taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate. By the way, I am far from wealthy myself, and I base my opinions on simple common sense.
nkb said:
A lot of people don't agree with sending our troops to war based on inaccurate information about WMDs. Others believe believe it was an honest mistake, or that it really doesn't matter that we haven't found any.
A little over 13 years ago we defeated Iraq and drove them out of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein’s regime agreed to dismantle and destroy their weapons in exchange for a cease fire. 17 U.N. resolutions over 12 years demanded that Iraq allow free access to U.N. weapons inspectors and provide proof that they had destroyed their weapons, or else face serious consequences. Iraq never complied, but instead continually gave the U.N. the figurative “finger”.
Here are a few facts:
1. The Hussein regime had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and used them more than once on Iraqi citizens.
2. Saddam Hussein continually refused to verify the destruction of his stockpiles.
3. Iraq was in material breach of 17 U.N. resolutions.
4. Saddam Hussein was known to be seeking the means to produce tactical nuclear and biological weapons.
5. Saddam Hussein was on record as advocating the destruction of the West (just like Al Qaeda).
6. Saddam Hussein had tremendous oil revenue potentially at his disposal.
I could go on and on but the fact is that our invasion of Iraq was overdue and justified for many legitimate reasons. We should have done taken Hussein out in the mid 90’s, but unfortunately at that time we had a President who was always more concerned with his standing in the poles than in doing the right thing. The WMD issue is nothing more than a straw man created and promoted by the Democrats as a way of attacking President Bush in this election. You have to be naive (or living in a cave for the past 13 years) to buy into it, but apparently there are plenty of people who are (or have).
