General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

I'm only going to argue this one more time because it is really becoming redundant. Practicing medicine means WHAT?!?!?! Can you understand my frustration? You are implying that a person is not practicing medicine unless they go to school for 8 years and pay a bazillion dollars for a degree. Just about any culture you can look at practices some form of medicine even if it's something as simple as herbal remedies. An herbel remedy may seem laughable compared to a brain surgeon, but doesn't a tribal warrior with a spear seem just as laughable compared to an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine? If you broke your leg on a hiking trip and no one else is around you could fashion a splint. You cannot say self defense is a natural human ability everyone has and then say that medicine is not. Well you can say it but logic does not support that argument. I know damn well that a brain surgeon would not operate on themself, yes. I also know damn well that I could not fly a fighter plane or drive a tank. I still have to rely on someone else's services for my defense. I cannot defend myself against the Iraqi army. I probably can't defend myself even against you to be honest. But I do pay money to the government and receive their defense in return. Nobody is claiming a right to the lives of those soldiers. What people claim a right to is a competant military which allocates the common resources of society (and people are one of the resources of society) to the effective defense of it's people. It's very similar to claim a right to a government insitution which allocates resources to the necessary medical care of the people. It is claiming the right to healthcare not Dr. Gumdrop's services - and similarly I may claim a right to my defense but not to Pvt. Wippingboy's life. Those people are NOT slaves any more than I am a slave for making people's coffee at a coffeshop or ringing up their books at the bookstore.

well, I was GOING to post that, but then you beat me to it

Ed, don't you think it's silly to use the official Michael Moore site to support disputed things in the film?
Even with factual backups, being on the official Michael Moore site makes it suspect.
I can't say either way because I haven't seen it yet.

To answer your question, no I don't John because if you look at the site you'd see that every fact listed has a verifiable source listed with it. That's a fair question to be sure, but just check it out and see for yourself. Sources include the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Sources include the Washington Post and the New York Times.

I hope your being sarcastic. Those two papers are a joke. It would be wise to just follow your instincts on this stuff, I believe that is the best way to know what to do.

CNN, PBS, Chicago Sun-Times, CBS News, San Diego Union-Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, Guardian Unlimited, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicle, New York Times, the Washington Post. Surely these aren't all in the business of printing false information. Bias is one thing but facts are facts and most reputable journalists can't get away with making them up. I don't know what you're implying exactly. That the New York Times and Washington Post because of whatever percieved bias are not credible sources of information? I believe in critically analyzing sources as much as anyone else but there's a difference between being conscientious about forming your own opinion and being a conspiracy theorist. The other thing is, your instincts and mine are largely influenced by which sources we do go to for information. But whatever. It's like I said before, nobody can force people to believe in anything. Believe what you want. All's I'm saying is there is a great deal of evidence there.

You say capitalism creates a problem of unemployment and inability. Yet the socialists states on average have greater unemployment. The US's core numbers because of the larger population. The percentage of peopel unemployed in Europe is greater than the US's so socialism obviously does not fix unemployment.

You again are trying to hide everything in the complexities of modern life. Government has basic roots that come from nature. First aid is not exactly what I would consider the practice of medicine. Now what gives a person the right to something that always needs another person to work for them? Webster's defines medicine as "a substance or preparation used in treating disease" or "something that affects well-being". I think that is a good definition. You are the one who started talking about how great socialism is and I have a legitamite question. I want an answer. How do you claim a right to the work of another man? Give me an answer that isn't shrouded in modern times.

I never said nationalized healthcare would cost too much. I wan tto know why it is an individual right.

Article 29 Section 3 sets the UN up as above the people. Then again I'm also against all bills of rights in general.

How is charity avoiding the issue of the poor? The government gives money to anybody that "qualifies". You realize that a wealthy man can get welfare if he stops workign for a year and moves all his money into interest free accounts. Charities of course will stop giving people money if they just want the easy way out. How dare they actual give to the genuinely needy.

Amnd what Michael Moore does is propaganda. "2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect" What he does is most definetly propaganda. Of course we all know he is such a compationate socialist. I mean the way he donates money is so generous.

Alright lazyboy, fair enough. I'm going to take some time to see if I can construct an argument that will actually be convincing to you. I don't know if I can, but I'll give it a try. In the mean time, if you are interested, it may do you some good to read what other people have to say about Socialism. I'm fairly uninformed as a whole, and thus far it seems I've succeeded in confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.

This is a good comprehensive overview: Socialism From Below

World Socialism I haven't read any of this yet, but there are a lot of articles about it here which might be useful.

Socialism Web Site - there are some essays here and links to other sites.

With a little searching I'm sure you could find a lot more.
I want to ask you a question though since I've been doing by best to respond to your questions. You don't like socialism but you think there are problems with our society. So what are your proposed solutions?

And I'll get back to you later about answering your questions because I feel like I've exhausted my ability to answer the same question and I've got to find a new strategy or something. I'm not conceeding by any means, I just strongly feel that I've answered the question that you are still asking. You say "Give me an answer that isn't shrouded in modern times." (which I think is a very disrespectful thing to say by the way. shrouded implies some kind of intentional deception) It seems to me like you are asking me to stop talking about practical solutions and instead give you abstract political philosophy to back up my claims. The truth is, the basis for my support of socialism comes from a practical evaluation of what the problems in our society are. I don't think abstract political philosophy helps anyone. Anyway, there are many people far more capable of giving you the political philosophies behind socialism than I am so I suggest again that if you really want your question answered and you aren't happy with the answers I'm giving you that you do a bit of reading on the topic and see if you get some more acceptable answers that way. And I'll see if I can improve my argumentation.

Which social issues would you like me to responde to? If you would like I will lay down my political ideas and you can ask away.

The fact that some people in the US must choose between buying food or buying medicine.

Originally posted by: lazyboy97O
But I do not want to use a government to change people.

Oh, yes. How dare the government abolish slavery, abolish separate but equal, liberate blacks, or liberate women? All of these turning points in American history were done by liberals. Even Lincoln, who was a Republican by name, was a liberal. Conservatives didn't gain the title of 'Republican' and liberals didn't gain the title of 'Democrat' until the late 1800's. It was basically the opposite of what it is now.

I think all this socialism vs arachy business relates to the OP in that Republicans are supposed to be for small government, right? Well let's examine that assertion. What is meant by "small government." Democrats favor a large government with many localized governments controlling major issues. This is why Democrats would like to continue to allow states to choose on the issue of gay marriage. Republicans would like to have one federal government that controls the entire country, without allowing states to make their own decisions. This is why Bush is trying to out-right ban gay marriage with an amendment.

So, given this, is the Republican party (conservativism) really for "small government?" No. It is for a single, LARGE government. This is why you will often hear of Bush being compared to Hitler, because a single large government is little more than a dictatorship.

More liberal parties, such as the Democratic or Socialist parties, want a lot of small governments that govern in their localized juristictions while still guiding those governments towards certain goals/requirements such as housing, health care, and education by a constitution of some sort.

Socialism has priorities. Why lazyboy sees that as a problem, I'll never know.

The fact that some people in the US must choose between buying food or buying medicine.

Pharmicudical companies give out millions of dollars worth of medicine each year. There are food warehouses all over the country. The only problem with a charity is that the recipients have to prove the need. Go to a church ad tell them you need and they will help. Heck, some church organizations don't even ask they just give if you ask for help. What the government gives people is not enough to live off of. So it is just a cover to show how compasionate politicians.

The titles of liberal and conservative are bullshit titles. Each has so many different definitions. The classical liberals of the Enlightenment would be considered conservative today. Ending slavery wasn't changing people's lives. It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government.

You have the concepts reversed. Socialism calls for large national governments that reach locally. Hitler was a National Socialist. And if you look at it there are only three main differences between National Socialism and Democractic Socialism. That would be racism, rule, and war. Hitler believe it was the job of the government to provide the people with their bread and them reach their greater potential.

Socialism's priorities have no place in government. A government's job is to protect the individual rights of the people. Well I for one can't see how social programs are a right. And who exactly are people being protected from with social programs?

Pharmicudical companies give out millions of dollars worth of medicine each year. There are food warehouses all over the country. The only problem with a charity is that the recipients have to prove the need. Go to a church ad tell them you need and they will help. Heck, some church organizations don't even ask they just give if you ask for help. What the government gives people is not enough to live off of. So it is just a cover to show how compasionate politicians.

So you are saying that people that for one or another reason (most of them because of the capitalistic system) can't get basic things like food, medicine, shelter, on what they make, or because they have sort of fallen outside society with no social safety net to catch them should depend on charities to survive? That makes them directly dependant on other people, and unable to support themselves and get higher on the capitalistic class ladder.
If there instead was social programs that protected people from getting into that situation (because I don't believe anyone intentionally put themself on the bottom of society), like state funded shelters and kitchens, as well as government subsidies to people without a job, we would have a more equal society. Not a very equal society, (I'm basing this on Swedish politics, and Sweden is despite politics like this pretty inequal) but not in comparision with what I read and hear about America today more equal.

Ending slavery wasn't changing people's lives. It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government.

And protecting the lifes of people who because of the inequal society can't protect themselves is not a governemnt function? Any action you take is going to change people's life, the question isn't if it should or not (because it will), but in what way it should change the lifes of the affected people.

You have the concepts reversed. Socialism calls for large national governments that reach locally. Hitler was a National Socialist. And if you look at it there are only three main differences between National Socialism and Democractic Socialism. That would be racism, rule, and war. Hitler believe it was the job of the government to provide the people with their bread and them reach their greater potential.

I don't understand this, what is your point? You mean that exactly everything the Nazi party did was bad? Anything Hitler believed in is automatically bad? The world isn't black and white like that. The Nazis gained power because of the discontent of the German people over the lost war and the failing economy, and they actually managed to stabilize and strengthen the economy (before the war made it collapse totally, of course), provide most of Germany's workers with jobs (with the exception of the minority groups that was persecuted), and so forth. Don't missunderstand me, I hate the Nazis and Adolf Hitler for what they did and what they started, and I am in no way defending them or anything like that, just stating that the world isn't as black and white as you seem to see it. It's too easy to just call something evil and something else good, it doesn't work like that.
I get the impression you're trying to make people associate socialism with nazism because you're running out of ways to repeat the same arguments over and over, regardless of what people reply. The only things national socialism has in common with modern socialism was the very few good things the Nazi party actually did, if anything at all.

EDIT - I'm unsure about how to word this part, so please don't get upset about any of it, I'm mostly testing the thought and I realise it might be badly formulated.

Socialism's priorities have no place in government. A government's job is to protect the individual rights of the people. Well I for one can't see how social programs are a right. And who exactly are people being protected from with social programs?

Socialism's priorities is what socialists believe should have a place in government. The government isn't some kind of static institution that cannot be changed in any way, it both shapes and is shaped by society as it is a part of it. I agree that it is a government's job to protect the rights of people, and social programs are a way to do this. They help protecting people from poverty, help people to support themselves, protect them from falling outside society with no way back in, etc. Your question should be "what exactly are people being protected from with social programs?" instead.

The government doesn'tgive enough for people to climb anywhere. You need to admit that there are lazy people out there. If the government just gives you money because you don't have it what keeps you from just sittign there? Nothing does. A charity will stop giving a person money if they just expect money.

So what causes inequality in society? If fate makes a person poor how do you protect them from it? If laziness is the cause then you have government protecting people from themselves.

My point is that TheOldGuy had his ideas about what those groups want are wrong. Hitler was a National Socialist and I stated the three main differences between National Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Nazism is a form of socialism whether you like it or not.

Protecting people from poverty? Poverty is a condition. Poverty is incapable of acting. It is nothing more than an adjective.

Ending slavery wasn't changing people's lives. It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government.

it changed the lives of the slave owners.

what about the other things i mentioned? care to address those?

You have the concepts reversed. Socialism calls for large national governments that reach locally.

Both are "one government" if you want to get technical, but socialism allows local governments (still a part of the whole) to rule in favor of the people they represent.

Socialism's priorities have no place in government. A government's job is to protect the individual rights of the people. Well I for one can't see how social programs are a right. And who exactly are people being protected from with social programs?

first you say that a government health care plan is wrong because it forces people to work, but then you said that "It was an act of protecting the life of people, thus it is a function of government."

Health care PROTECTS PEOPLE from disease and injury.

Education PROTECTS THEIR FUTURE, so that they can better sustain their lives and others afterwards.

Housing PROTECTS FAMILIES from harsh weather and other dangers.

All these things "[protect] the life of people, thus [they are] function[s] of government."

PS: I'm playing the role of devil's advocate.

I actually believe that having a more conservative government would lead to a better society so long as the government's actions were founded in logic rather than religion. Unfortunately, America doesn't have one of those.

Lazy Boy, did you even study Socialism or atleast go to that website that Coaster Ed posted and read what it had to say? really.... its a politically party you've got the right to always vote for the party you like. even if its Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, or even the Nazi Party of America. thats your right.

you always repeat the same thing in a different light, and like whats his name said. the world is not black and white like Bush says it is, its shades of gray. in Europe, the rise of Nazism is seen as a government take over by a ruthless thug like Hitler and his browncoats, through the manipulation of the German democratic system. it can HAPPEN in any nation, even here. don't get yourself thinking its like Nazi style now either, it can be a continuation of different leaders of the same party to hold sole domination over all other parties, such as Republican today, which i'm not hinting anything at all either. that this party (which ever one it may be) have its own objectives in a small pool of people.

now again, ever heard of the saying, too much of a good thing is a bad thing? that works in my mind for all parties, just look at the Communist party run governments, and the Dictatorships, and on and on. in a Democracy like Europe, where the nations parties flip flop for power, once in a while its Socialist, next its liberel, then its conservative, on and on. but always people will have their elections. thats all i'm pointing out, for me atleast and maybe Coaster Ed also, in this time of America's life, it may be good to have a Socialist party actually start getting picked up in America's political party radar.

The government doesn'tgive enough for people to climb anywhere. You need to admit that there are lazy people out there. If the government just gives you money because you don't have it what keeps you from just sittign there? Nothing does. A charity will stop giving a person money if they just expect money.

Of course there are ways to exploit the systems, as with all systems, but the few who do so shouldn't stop the people who do need help, from getting the help they need. The point of social subsidies (Is that the correct word? I hope you understand me) is to help people stay inside society until they find a job, it's not supposed to be anything you live on entirely, just a temporary solution to the problem that is unemployment.
Say a person can't find a job because his parents were immigrants from some Arab country, and so he can't get a job not because of lack of education, he's pretty highly educated, not because he's lazy, he really isn't, but because he has an Arab name and looks (which is a pretty realistic situation, atleast in Sweden, so I'm guessing it's the same in America, especially with all the anti-terrorist stuff). Is he supposed to live of charities on a bare existance minimum, or should he get help from the government to get a job and in the mean time, be able to survive above the existance minimum. In this case it is the government protecting him from discrimination as well as falling outside society.

Your other points I won't bother to argue against, because I don't like how you didn't try to understand my post, no matter how badly written it might be.

Yes, I have looked at socialism. "Know they enemy"

So what if Europe changes leadership? Things grow. The conservatives never end the social programs. Social programs still grow and that is what I am against.

Stop trying to appeal to me through democracy. I hate democracy. And I think democracy is part of the problem with all of this.

The government system doesn't prevent people from cheating it. It doesn't matter if they aren't supposed to. The US offers public education. And racism is simply bad for business in the US. And people have a right to be racist when it comes to hiring people. But today its bad for business so they don't practice it.

Descrimination is a person's right when it comes to private organizations.

wow, you just went down a few pegs.

Last post from me to you LB-

You're a dumbass.

End of story.

K- I'm finally done. That was cathartic.