General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

And yet you lack any knowledge of who I actually am so therefore you too are prejudging. Insults can still be thought out.

I have logically shown that democratic socialism is in itself a contradiction. An example of me playing basketball has nothing to do with trying to disprove the contradiction that is democratic socialism.

okay Lazy Boy WHO ARE YOU? please enlighten us.

you constantly twist the post's around. he wasn't making fun of your view of Socialism and the basketball, he was making fun of your judgments, because you don't EVEN consider the thought of the other side. your more like a robot.

look at me for example, I was strictly against same-sex marriage (don't make this the debate, this is about Socialism here and this is an example of me) for religious reasons. but in this nation founded on the idea of Church and State seperated, then in the eyes of the STATE why can't same-sexe's get married? the Church will always condemn it and that IS THEIR right, but it is not the right of the state to hinder ANYONE. remember all men are created equal....well they ought to be treated equal. and therefore after a while of thinking i reversed it. make no mistake Lazy Boy i am still against it, i don't like it at all. BUT i accepted the other sides view's. in short i compromised.


In socialist societies, i don't see the nations of Europe stepping over their boundaries, i have not heard people rioting. the worst thing i heard was France's ban of head scarfs, hijabs, jewish skullcaps, and crosses to be worn whether in school or in most public areas, and that i am against but that is for the French to decide. now... consider this, the socialist nations are peaceful nations, their economy thanks to the cooperation thru the European Union is STRONGER then the American doller, and as suggested going to get stronger as the newly entered nations getting revving up. the cost of living is cheaper there. There are MANY benefits to Socialist, and freedoms are extended to ALL people.

When you say "You cannot make people accept each other. It is very much "I only accpt those who accept everybody" because those who do not accept everybody are jailed. So socialism contradicts itself in that sense."

the Socialist state DOES NOT make people get along, it makes the government accept everyone and serve everyone. you can not get along with a jew or Muslim if you want to, you can do whatever you want. but say a Jewish couple wants to get married, yet the governemt is against jews or dosent get along with them does that make it correct? please Lazy Boy in my example (and don't twist it) put yourself in the shoes of the jewish couple, how would you feel maybe... "I don't care what people think of me, i want to get married to my love".

Bingo Bango, Lazy Boy thats all. try to see the other side, and don't be a robot with the same answers. don't here Socialism and automatically think Communism. Communism USES force. when i was in Spain which has a socialist party, i did not HEAR people being forced to be doctors, or go to certain schools, if anything the state made it easier to people to do or go into the fields they chose to go into, and that my friend is freedom.

The idea of socialism and self governing democracy is a contradiction.

No. It isn't. See ed and guardian.

Socialism says people cannot take care of themselves and need the government

No, it doesn't. See ed and guardian.

and yet relies on these incompetents to be the decision makers.

one incompetent is no better than 2, 3, 4 and so on. If the only decisions being made are bad to begin with, what does it matter how many are making that bad decision? I'll tell you: NONE. Common sense. If the bread is stale, it's stale.

You cannot be both the best at making your decisions and the worst.

Probably. But because you are basing this on a false assumption to begin with, there ceases to be any kind of contradiction at all. It simply doesn't apply.

ggpo



PS- hey Guardian, I agree it's not right for france to ban the stuff it did. It's not hurting anyone if anyone is wearing their cross or scarf. In effect, I consider it destroying religious freedom.

So...scandanavian countries are a contradiction because they have democratically elected, empowered, and completely legal socialist countries? Last time I looked, they were countries, not contradictions.

You disproved nothing. They use Europe as an example and Europe's freedom has been hindered and they do not live in this socialist prosperity.

The goal of socialism is to create a state which provides the people with their basic needs. This means that there must be people unable to meet their basic needs on their own. If people could all fullfill their needs then socialism is irrelevant. So if everybody is to be involved then that would include those unable to provide for themselves. How can a person unable to provide for himself decide who would provide for him best? It can't happen. Either those people must be kept from voting or they must be allowed to decide who is best at doing what they cannot do.

Hooray! The little envelope at the header of this thread just turned orange! It must be important now.

what did i just tell you?.... a Socialist party that is in power thru the voting power of democracy, which therefore was voted in BY the people of a nation. the Socialist party can still lose in the next election, just as a Democrat or a Republican party can lose. Democracy is the empowering the people to vote who they want to rule them, plain and simple whether it be state governer, senator, County member, or President it is the process in voting in the person who is likely to do the best job to rule over you and your peers, that is in my view what Democracy is. its not savvy American flag-waving propoganda, its the basic process of who is to rule best.

and.... like i said before, in Spain atleast, no one is telling people where they should go, what job they will take, etc. etc. or what school they will go to, they will not be put in primarily one field like mainland China does, which by the way is.... COMMUNIST.

like the Socialist party states.... fair elections

fair availability to the media,
the running candidate cannot use his vast wealth to outbeat his opponet, because that dosent give the PEOPLE a fair view of other candidates.

it want's to make things fair, why do you think countries like Italy have like 30 parties running for office, because it makes for more choices for the people of Italy, to make up their minds, as to who will rule, whether that be Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, or just about anything. that is freedom. the freedom to run for elective position, and to run for what you believe in. the only thing against that is when the party is solely out to harm the people, or certain groups which have either historically or currently not a 'popular' people. example for USA (Historical = Blacks, Currently = Arabs) it would be illegal for a party to run for office and call for the termination or forceful deportation of all arabs.

In the end, Lazy Boy you make your desicion, either make the desicion to atleast open your mind to other ideas and LISTEN to them, or remain the way you are and reiterate yourself with the same answer in a different tense.

people can make desicion for themselves, but the people need to have a fairer place to live, something ought to have been done about the people who cannot afford medicine that they NEED to survive. something ought to have been done a long time ago about the school's where minorities are not getting the same education or atleast retain it for further education. both parties in America have done really nothing, both Republican and Democrat play the political game, the Republicans pull out No Child Left Behind Act, and they don't even fund it.

not to mention, most Europeans are a lot less war-hungry like they used to? i wonder why.... maybe because the European nations got together with their socialist leaders and created alliances not to mention downsize their military sizes for cooperative help for each other, and spent the extra TRILLIANS of dollers that were opend up to help their people. Lazy Boy... we have starving people in America right now, in Spain i didn't see a starving person or a hobo, NADA not one in the entire four cities i went to did i see one. you know why? because the Socialist state helps those that cannot help themselves but does not hinder those who can.

I just realized TheGaurdian posted.

I have said it before and I will say it again my personal life is of no importance to this discussion unless I make it part of it. I have not done so and will not do so.

Making fun of me is still making fun of me. Either it is mean spirited or it is an inability to argue back.

Laws are force. The government does not go in and negotiate with the people to do things. If you get a DUI a judge does not negotiate with you about it if you are found guilty. You are sentenced and the state will come after you if you disobey. That is force. Governments are force. it doesn't have to be SS troops kicking down doors watching what everybody is doing.

The French are hindering religious freedom. If they want to live that way that is fine by me. But it is nobody's place to tell people they cannot wear religious articles. I know the French claim it is to protect people. But if a person is capable of chosing a leader I think a person is capable enough to decide what religious articles to wear and where and when. That is a personal choice not a choice of governemnt or society.

The European nations do not have a stronger economy. The dollar is still the currency of the world. The US GDP per capita is still higher than any nations except Luxembourg. But one third of Luxembourg's workers live outside the country. The United States still has a higher growth of the GDP than Europe and the unemployment rate for Europe is higher than the United States'. So obviously something is happening in these states that is allowing for the US to remain stronger. If you do not believe me then feel free to check out the CIA World Factbook. You'll find that everything I have just stated to be fact.

And when did I associate socialism with communism? Socialism is a means and an end. Communism is an end with its means being socialism. I know what i am talking about.

not to mention, most Europeans are a lot less war-hungry like they used to? i wonder why.... maybe because the European nations got together with their socialist leaders and created alliances not to mention downsize their military sizes for cooperative help for each other, and spent the extra TRILLIANS of dollers that were opend up to help their people. Lazy Boy... we have starving people in America right now, in Spain i didn't see a starving person or a hobo, NADA not one in the entire four cities i went to did i see one. you know why? because the Socialist state helps those that cannot help themselves but does not hinder those who can.

bolded for emphasis. And LB, who are you to say that europeans aren't living as freely as we are?! Have you even been to europe? Have you seen their lack of freedom first hand? Have you asked someone in europe if they felt they were living a life without freedom? What makes you so absolutely certain that you have more freedom than them? What the fuck makes you think you can condescend them so ignorantly?


Oh, and by the way...

we've already discussed this... but what you seem to want is anarchy. "government is oppression, there should be no laws!"

That's anarchy. No laws is anarchy. Maybe... what you DO want, is laws that suit YOU, and screw everyone else. In which case, good luck kissing your local legislatures ass, there are already plenty of people as absurd and selfish as you, trying to make things like masturbation illegal.

But if a socialist program becomes full fledged it will become intertwined with the society and will not be easily removed.

you cannot know that. This is just your bullshit opinion. And as such, the rest of your post falls apart.

The last two sentences/paragraphs in that article made me laugh histerically.

Now for TheGaurdian's second post.

I never said a socialist party cannot be kicked out of office. But if a socialist program becomes full fledged it will become intertwined with the society and will not be easily removed. Politics is long term. Just because they win now and lose tomorrow doesn't mean things in the long run cannot head towards one party's agenda. Eventually the people will need the governemnt nd thus will lose their voice in it. If the people retain their voice but the socialist society lives then you basically have either a communal or communist society.

Again, force isn't just stuff like the SS.

I am lost by your tangent on parties. The US has parties. The government should not be involved with them. If the Republicans can be heard the best then they shall be heard best. If the Democrats and same for them. If the Greens then same for them again. Governments should in no way be involved in the political parties.

Then destroy the acts when they happen. A man cannot be arrested for thinking about commiting DUI. If a person is being deprived of his livelihood then that is an infringement of the right to life. Makign things "fair" has nothing to do with punishing right and wrong. I think it actually starts to skew the concept of right and wrong.

Your visit argument is ridulous. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

And I think Europe will be at war again soon enough.

bolded for emphasis.  And LB, who are you to say that europeans aren't living as freely as we are?!  Have you even been to europe?  Have you seen their lack of freedom first hand?  Have you asked someone in europe if they felt they were living a life without freedom?  What makes you so absolutely certain that you have more freedom than them?  What the fuck makes you think you can condescend them so ignorantly?

In Germany it is illegal to have a copy of Mein Kampf without the government's permission.

^^^what mine or Lazy Boy's?

pbob speaks of the article in the first post of the thread.

I am what some refer to as a"near anarchist".

I love how I am selfish for standing up for myself. I only want laws that punish people for depriving another person of his life, liberty, or property. The use of force is only warranted in response to force. And the use of force in response to force is not contrary to the ideals of peace. Humans are a flawed species and as such we will have our downfalls thus making government a need for the common protection of basic rights.

What the hell does masterbation have to do with anything? Am I a Christian fundamentalist all of a sudden? Well thanks for letting me know.

And there is no mass historical proof of people giving up political power. If the people need the government the government will assume all control because the governemnt cannot be opposed as it is the needed. And what would happen of over night Social Security or welfare or medicare just ended? There would be a lot of problems. A gradual decrease is needed just like a gradual introduction is needed.

try to remember Lazy Boy that the Nazi party was made illegal after the German people got control of their nation again. eventually the Mein Kempf will be opened up. just as any society moves on.

as to my trip, that is all i have to support it, and my many stops in Amsterdam. i still tell you, i have yet to seen a hobo, while i can easily drive my car into the city and see plenty of guys sitting on the ground with their back to a building, and if that building should be something like US Bank, or a Hilton hotel the nice rent-a-cop will tell them to get a long and away from the building. as far as i got from people in Spain, the Spanish government has made homes for the poor, their not fancy ones at all, but they are basic ones, not to mention they are given benefits and are helped to get up the social (society whatever) latter. hence Social-ism. America does this also, but not in the way it should, their are still beggars in the streets, and while their is housing they don't really get the help they need. if you want to know my mother works for CPS (Child Protective Services) and when she was in training she went out to these tenemants in Houston, Tx to help the poor, i was there for two days helping setting up tables and setting out the free hot meal foods. but like the cook said a lot of the people don't bother to actually rise and get out of the welfare. that's why in countries like Spain they give the poor and welfare needy the availability of education, free education which by the way... is entitled to all Spaniards.

what i ment on parties was this. all parties should be given, and i mean a given to be heard by the people, when you say " If the Republicans can be heard the best then they shall be heard best. If the Democrats and same for them. If the Greens then same for them again" does that mean if they can slam with you more infomercials then each other thats fair? no its not, because the people the average joe isn't gonna know what the Democrats or any of the other parties are doing. a person is smart people together are generally stupid and that is true. but when the person is given his/her option of parties and what they stand for they will usually make a decision as a whole, and not be influenced because of the bombardment of pep rally conventions TV specials and millions of dollers in smearing campaigns.

plus how can you say Europe will go to war again? their in a freaking alliance, economically and militarily, they are strong together. and if the Euro is stronger then the American doller now with their high unemployment rates (which is true) just think how much stronger its going to get when the Europeans start rising again. Europeans got into the European Union, because they knew that seperate they are weak, but together they are strong. "All for one and one for all"

now the French problem with the head scarfs, i do agree. even in the socialist nation it is it makes controversial laws, what governemnt dosent? the U.S. just tried making gay-marriage illegal isn't controversial, while Canada did the opposite. some in either case people are going to think its absurd to do such things. me personally i think the French ban on religious articles being worn in public places, i'm strongly against it, because its a invasion of people religious freedom, not to mention freedom of expression. its like banning tatoos and making it illegal.

your right Lazy Boy about that governments are a force, but is it not better for a governemnt force to serve everyone equally, and make sure everyone is taken care of in their nations? is it so wrong. having no laws in a nation is a dream, not a reality. however Lazy Boy their is still hope, if you like Anarchy or atleast near anarchy you can always move to Somalia. personally i actually plan on moving to Spain one day if want to know the truth.

Methinks LB is someone who does not have the life experience to be speaking of the things which he does.


LB...go to China before you spout of your "Communist State is bad" diatribe. (Mind you, I have been there about 12 times.....I CAN tell you what I think about their governmental system).

Then, while you're at it...pop on over to Europe...and enlighten us about the "EVIL SOCIALIST STATE" of Europe....you can't do it..because Europe....while plagued with problems, is every bit as FREE as the US, with the exception of taxes...and even THAT can be negotiated.


So..what it really boils down to is this....your thoughts and opinions on things that you have NO experience upon which to base them. Please stop referring to books and media as your sources of knowledge and go out into the world and actually EXPERIENCE the things that you seem to be so vehemently against.

One point of view is that peope were always better off governing themselves. Communities knew better what their needs were when compared to a national government. That's the argument which has kept state rights so significant in our country and I don't think it's a bad argument. The more centralized and autocratic government becomes, the harder it is for individuals to get what they need out of it. And in a way all laws are limits to freedom. The only way we could really do whatever we want is if there are no laws. This point of view, whatever it's merits, is passing out of relevancy due to the reality of modern society. The population is increasing not decreasing. At one point perhaps there was a choice between individual freedom and society. Society is a compromise and you could choose to give up the benefits it provides in order to avoid the corresponding limits to individual freedom. Well that choice does not really exist anymore for most people. I'm sure you could still find a cave somewhere and make a go of it but sooner or later other people are going to stumble onto that cave too and you're going to run out of empty caves. If it's solutions you want, you have to start planning a government which accounts for this reality. Anything else is only delaying a solution to society.

So given that we will have to come up with a solution to society, that lawlessness and total individual freedom is a thing of the past or at least will be at some point, there are short term solutions and longterm solutions. One short-term solution is capitalism. That system allows for maximum individual freedom within society. People are happy because it's as close as we can get to that ideal of lawlessness. Even better, hard work does result in better living standards for some people and if that opportunity exists for some people, than the perception is that it exists for all people. I look at third world countries and slums in first world countries and wonder if that opportunity really does exist for all people. In any case, it's becoming increasingly clear that capitalism, pure capitalism, is a short term solution whose relevency is also nearing it's end. Why is that? Simply because the resources on this planet which have been the basis for capitalism from the beginning - the raw materials of industrialization - are running out much faster than anyone ever imagined. Think about that. Since the industrial age, production has been dependent on oil, coal, wood, iron. What is going to happen to the world economy when these resources are gone? And even more important, will this planet continue to support an ever increasing population once we've mined it clean of all those resources. Regardless of social concerns associated with capitalism (and I'll get to those in a minute) time is running out for that system and as it does, governments are having to add more and more laws and dilute pure capitalism. Smog checks are a simple example. If your car does not meet the pollution standard, you can't drive it. It doesn't matter if you need that car to get to work and can't afford a new one. Laws is laws. And as you can see, so long as the ideology persists that capitalism is the best way because it at leas approximates an ideal of total freedom, the patchwork of more and more limits will just continue. It's a short term solution to the problem and the question I want to ask is this - if we have to put all our energy into making patches to keep the ship afloat, shouldn't we start thinking about designing a new ship?

Now here's where I launch into that other point of view. The first was the utopian ideal of total freedom - meaning no laws. People fend for themselves, the strong survive, the weak do not. Nobody has to compromise their happiness to accomadate anyone else. The second is the opposite, a complete society which orchestrates resources and production to ensure that all people live the best life possible. I'm sure right now you're thinking that this is total lack of freedom, a kind of Brave New World dystopian scenario, so allow me to justify this view as I've done for the first. The reason I'm a socialist in the first place is that one day I said to myself, this is 2004. This is a whole new millenium. Every day we learn of miraculous new advances in science and medicine which promise to make life better. The cars we drive are better than what our parents drove at our age. We have computers and the internet. All of these things exist which supposedly make life better and yet we still have the same social problems that every society has had. Why? We can clone DNA, we've decoded the human genome, why the hell can't we find food and shelter for people? It's not a matter of technology cause it's there. It's a matter of logistics. If we could take all that food which goes to waste in affluent countries (ask anyone whose worked in a restaurant how much food they throw away) and get it to the poor and starving ones that might not solve the problem but it would certainly be a good start. So one day I asked myself, why in 2004 are we still accepting social problems as unsolvable which are very much solvable?

Well here's why. People leading affluent countries first lived in those affluent countries and came to appreciate that lifestyle. The same ideology which pushes us to work harded to succed in our capitalist society, which makes us appreciate the freedoms afforded us by that society, that is the ideology which also prevents us from giving up our affluence to help others. We earned it, we worked for it, therefore it should be ours. Afterall, anyone else can achieve what we have if they work hard enough. But as I've stepped outside of my middle class house in a suburb of Sacramento I've come to see that this just is not so. There are so many examples. How about wealthy people going to Ivy League schools and becoming doctors and lawyers and busninessmen and career politicians while poor people work in auto shops or pick crops. I just read this yesterday, there are more African Americans in prisons in this country than in college. Can you believe that? Let me say that again - there are more African Americans in prisons in this country than in colleges. How about the people born in third world countries who count themselves lucky when Reebok moves it's corporation next to their village and offers them 5 cents an hour. We pat ourselves on the back for bringing these people the wonderful joys of capitalism. Now they have 5 cents when before they had none. Well before they didn't need 5 cents because all that they needed to live and thrive was there for them at no cost. Now they have to pay for food because some enterprising farmer bought all the land. Everyone is working now so they can't make clothes so they must buy them instead. Their quality of life went down not up. This is the dirty secret of capitalist society. The secret which all of the affluent world works to cover up at all costs. All those products - the cars, the sports equipment, the produce, the construction materials - all of it comes from somewhere and the bigger profit somebody made off of it, the more someone else is paying the cost. Think about this - why was the revolutionary war fought in the US? Because Great Britain was taking natural resources for very little cost and selling back manufactured goods for high cost. All colonies exist to make the parent nation richer. Well that is exactly the same thing capitalism is doing to the rest of the world.

Alright so we want to drive our cars even though the resources needed to produce gas is becoming scarce and the pollution cars make is literally heating up our planet to the point where it may one day no longer be habitable for us. We want to walk into a supermarket and buy apples for 59 cents a pound or whatever and milk by the gallon (two for the price of one). This is modern living and it's wonderful and it's great but it can't last forever. There are third world countries because first world countries love the life they lead. There are not enough resources for every person on this planet to enjoy that kind of a life. It would destroy the planet and then there would be no people. To continue that lifestyle while knowing that doing so is preventing other people from doing the same is selfish. But here we go again with the ideal of individual freedom. There's even a whole moral philosophy which says that selfishness is the highest virtue. Well good for them, I'm glad they can sleep at night, but that doesn't change the fact that living this affluent lifestyle is directly contributing to the oppresion of millions, no more like billions of people and the destruction of the planet. You can stubbornly defend your personal freedom until the whole thing finally craps out and we all die (hey we've got a few hundred years left right? it's not our problem) or you can start contributing to a long term solution right here and now while there's still time.

PS - Because I care

PS - Because I care

haha, cain never knew what hit him.

TheGaurdian, the wya you state it you make Spain seem as if they keep people poor. People in the US have education too. Last I checked all parts of the country have public schools.

Parties should not be controlled by government. Whoever is best at delivering a message should be free to deliver it.

Europe has had its alliances before. Alliances can be broken. They will break theirs. They cannot remain indiviual states, which they want, and maintain this union the way they want to.

I haven't personally been to China. My mother has. And she was accidentially taken into the real China. She had a guide just like most people do and the bus driver made a wrong turn. China hides what it is really like.

Evils of Europe:
Ministiries of Culture - they regulate what media can enter the nation and be shown aka censorship.
French Ban on Religious Arcticles - hinders freedom of religion.
German Ban on Nazism - hinders the freedom of speach and flow of ideas.
English Ban on Guns - hinders self defense and has caused an increase in violent crimes.
Those are some. Most states have controls on media. The taxes have done nothing for their economies too.

Ed, you are wrong. Not all laws require compromise. Making murder illegal is not a compromise. Nobody has the right to kill another. Theft being illegal is not a compromise. How can these people make such decisions as to who will best care for them if they cannot? Nobody has answered this question.

There is nothign wrong with helping people and seeking equality. The problem lies in your means. You want to forcefully make people help others. That is not your place. People have free will. You cannot have freedom unless you also have the freedom to discriminate in your private domain. You are in no place to judge others. You are not a superior being who can make them help others. You are a human too. You should let the people live life as they see fit not as you see fit.