Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Late Night with Seth Meyers" channel.

It was about State' Rights, the right to have slaves and continue the institution of slavery. Only, many of the men who fought in the Confederate Army were so propagandized they never realized they were fighting for the relatively few wealthy people who lived in mansions.
29
They can't. They're still alive, which means they haven't removed themselves from the gene pool.
17
@rhondah1587 And the stupid thing is that, if they actually read their bibles, they would discover social programs are CHRISTIAN, not socialist or communist. You know, "I was hungry and you gave me to eat, thirsty, you gave me drink, ...". I would also mention they, like many people, confuse Socialism (the state running business and all other facets of life) with Christian values (doing everything you can to help others). So in other words, by standing against programs like affordable health care and social assistance they are not practicing their faith at all. It's hypocrisy in action.
9
@MajorAnthonyNelson Only problem is that, based on their history, the Pashtun seldom if ever keep their agreements if it suits them to betray them. After all, you are either infidels, or one of the other tribes they have been fighting for hundreds of years. The people who make up the Taliban care only about enforcing their medieval culture (which is often at odds with the Koran) on everyone around them at gun point. They are xenophobic and self-righteous, a dangerous combination.
5
@mikesmall8666 I'm afraid that, as an outsider looking in, the Republicans have been working on tearing the country apart for the sake of political power since Bill Clinton was first elected. One need only look at their divisive polarizing rhetoric to see this.
2
@Benke01 For a party that seems to believe in short term personal gain and long term national pain, no. I doubt it has crossed their minds that they may be destroying their own voter base.
2
@Marleystrummer Rather like most feudal systems.
2
@michael_zaki6903 True, but in its extreme form, socialism doesn't work. Mixed economies (capitalism with government controls and social programs) works best.
2
@dzd2371 But I thought that was what the Senate and House of Representatives are for - representing the rights of individual states. I guess something got lost over the years, either inadvertently, accidentally or deliberately. I guess the other thing that got lost is that no one was actually forcing the Confederate States to change, it was the fear of change and fear of loss of power that provoked the war.
1
@were-owlinwisconsin4441 I agree in part. However, that doesn't explain the fervor with which the Southerners fought. They quite obviously fought because they thought something was going to be taken from them.
1
@WilliamMc91 I disagree. They love freedom, as long as that freedom pertains to them doing what they want at everyone else's expense, and telling everyone else what to do.
1
@Illiteratechimp Doesn't make communism any better, though. Words are cheap. Over 60 million dead Chinese, Russians, Ukrainians and other nationalities, murdered by their own governments, speaks volumes about the lack of concern communists actually had for the workers, or anyone else they ruled. Both philosophies are extremist and condoned murder. It's just that Naziism killed along racial lines, while communists killed anyone who disagreed with the flavor of the month.
1
@Illiteratechimp You might get a different view of the Paris Commune if you listen to the "Revolutions" podcast.
1
@michael_zaki6903 True, but it can lead to stagnation because everything is run by the government, which has almost always been behind the 8-ball when it comes to making quick and timely decisions. One really needs a capitalist society with good social programs and people who care first and foremost about, ... people.
1
@echidnablade I can. It's called greed and avarice, one of the seven deadly sins of the ancient Greeks.
1
@marekkiejko7326 It used to be about 300 years ago, but at that time it was all called Sweden.
1
@Pete...NoNotThatOne That's only because Castro put a big emphasis on training doctors and nurses to the detriment of other trades so he could export communism. Great health care, everything else sucks.
1
@durango4u The US is part of the current problem, but not all of it. Ever since the USSR collapsed in 1990 Cuba has not been receiving massive subsidies from Russia. By not being a trading partner, the US is denying the communists a vast market and demonstrating that communist economics does not work. Thus, the enormous flaws in their socialist system are finally showing. Without a "charismatic" figure to lead them, and with the death of most of the old revolutionaries, people can actually see that the system is bankrupt.
1
@iriscollins7583 True, that was a bad comparison. Then again, most of the current GOP and its supporters probably wouldn't mind a modern version the feudal system. With them on top, of course. Rather like the song, "Sixteen Tons".
1
@Illiteratechimp I would disagree about your thought that socialism should replace or supplant capitalism. There are problems with both systems. What one needs, and the world seems to be heading towards, is a melding of the two concepts. It is what Marx, Lenin and others all fought against, probably because it would take a long time to implement and it wouldn't put their names up in lights. You need the creativity and flexibility that capitalism can give you, while having the safety nets and regulations to protect the non-elites / working classes. Socialism would tend to even out wage earnings, which surprisingly enough is a bad thing for two reasons. The first is that you end up losing incentives for people, which leads to stagnation. The second is that you need wealth to create things - like the head of water behind a hydro dam for generating power, or the chemical imbalance between the inside of a cell and its surrounding. In both cases, if you get rid of that imbalance, the system does not work. The Soviet Union and the Catalonian Anarchists both demonstrated how extreme socialism kills an economy. Much as one may hate the excesses of that can come from capitalism, it is necessary for a healthy economy. You need both philosophies working in concert, capitalism to generate the energy to keep the economy moving, socialism (or more accurately, social values following truly Christian values as outlined in Matt: 25: 35-40 and other places in the New Testament) to ensure a happy and healthy population. We may agree to disagree on this point, but this is my take on the debate.
1
@Illiteratechimp You are right about incremental change. Our current economic systems evolved through trial and error. I also agree that the rich are TOO wealthy - they are hoarding wealth that could be used improve worker's conditions, revitalize businesses, etc. I have no problems with people being rich, but hoarding wealth out of avarice is destructive. An economy works on the flow of money, not accumulation of wealth. It was this accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few that lead, in part, to the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and to the French and Russian Revolutions. It stagnated the growth and development of India and China in the 1600s-1800s, leading these two regions being dominated by colonial powers. By the way, your summation of all the problems in the former Soviet Union is excellent. However, the real issue, which you don't really touch upon, is that no system is, or can be, perfect. Base human nature, in the form of greed, lust for power, and the desire to dominate and control others, are all corrosive influences on ANY political or economic system. The biggest albatross we have around our necks is our darker nature, which leads to a lack of empathy for others and losing touch with reality. It is a pitfall that both revolutionaries and capitalists fall into. Indeed, Stalin's controlling nature and the ultra-wealthy's desire for more money and power are both manifestations of this. Many of their actions come from a desire not to lose their lofty perches. Democracy will survive as long as the rule of law can curb excesses, and taxation can be used to recycle money back into the system, and people use their brains to make educated decisions (oops, you're right, we're doomed). An example I like to use illustrating how out of touch some of these ultra-wealthy people are, is the story of Adolf Merckle. This man committed suicide in 2009 after losing $3.6 billion from his fortune, leaving him a "measly" $9.2 billion net worth. This guy's net worth was still more than the annual budget of 60% of the nations on this planet! If he was a country, his net worth would have ranked him around 92nd out of 228 countries. It just goes to show how severe his loss of perspective was.
1
Unfortunately, that would likely have been someone even worse, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
1