Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 567
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, the question I think would be, should the behavior of a few be used to attack everyone who is on the same side of an issue. The answer, obviously is no.

    KAM
    legitamate claim.

    But the mroe I see, the more common these types of things appear to be within the Tea-party movement. The bigot statements from an ex republican senator (forget his name). Amazing. This video. the way they purport themselves in every single "demonstration" they show up at.


    You know, I dont want to make a link here but your reasoning reminds me of the way I feel towards muslim extremists. No, not all muslims should be hated, or treated badly because of the actions of a few extreme muslims. But if they dont step up to speak out against and squash this kind of behavior then it serves them right when they get caught up in the middle of it.

    Maybe the onus lies on other tea-party participants to say...this isnt right. I didnt see that happening and I havent seen that happen. From tea-partiers or republicans.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    In what way has ANYTHING that has been done or being done fall into the category of socalism? I think people use the word without understanding the meaning. If you mean healthcare, there is no governement option...therefore not socialism. ONLY private insurance. Let me repeat, there is no public option.
    The Government owning Car Companies is socialistic. Owning or effectively controlling banks or other financial institutions is socialistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    As to your second point....do you remember the Clinton years? He balanced the budget. And we ended up with a surplus.
    Yes, the REPUBLICAN Congress and Democrat President together came up with a balanced budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    You cant just say democrats spend and tax. From the evidence, republicans spend and create deficits, democrats clean up the mess afterwards. We'll have to see how this one plays out currently.
    Actually Democrats do Spend. Unfortunately, so do Republicans. To say that Republicans "create deficits" is ignoring the fact that massive portions of our deficit and debt are due to programs put in place by Democrats--whether you like them or not. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

    Democrats "Cleaning up" is also a massive overstatement. When exactly has a Democrat Controlled government "Cleaned up" any mess? When has ANY Government "cleaned up" our spending problems? Even with Clinton and the Republican Congress, the long term issues were not addressed, even if they could show a balance sheet with a '+' for some time.

    Remember that Dot-Com boom...yeah, that was somewhat unique (and not at all healthy), but it did boost government revenue. It just so happens, this boom was SO big that it overrode the dampening one might have expected from the Tax increases, which of course yielded a even bigger government revenue. However, this somewhat unique situation isn't likely to occur again (it could with some other boom), but the aftermath (the bust) isn't ever really good.

    KAM
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    legitamate claim.
    Well, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    lBut the mroe I see, the more common these types of things appear to be within the Tea-party movement. The bigot statements from an ex republican senator (forget his name). Amazing. This video. the way they purport themselves in every single "demonstration" they show up at.
    Well, my personal opinion is that little good comes of protests (from either side), and that's why I don't participate in such things. You get a group of people worked up and they feed off of each other and stupidity ensues (in many cases). I remember watching the Anti-war protests in LA as well--lots of stupidity and absurdity going on there too.

    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    lYou know, I dont want to make a link here but your reasoning reminds me of the way I feel towards muslim extremists. No, not all muslims should be hated, or treated badly because of the actions of a few extreme muslims. But if they dont step up to speak out against and squash this kind of behavior then it serves them right when they get caught up in the middle of it.
    Well, I think that is largely true--the bad-actors of any group are wrongly used to portray the others in a bad light. I think this practice should be avoided.

    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    lMaybe the onus lies on other tea-party participants to say...this isnt right. I didnt see that happening and I havent seen that happen. From tea-partiers or republicans.
    Well, I'm not a Tea Partier (although I do enjoy Tea) or Republican, but I am a conservative, and I don't think that sort of thing is right.

    KAM
  4. #64  
    I think nonviolent protests have their place. Civil right marches, anti-war marches.

    But just going out to scream at people who are trying to discuss something is different. Thats not protest, thats a denial of discussion. Very different.

    But I think we agree on most things. This wasnt ok. I'm sure the other side does things that arent ok. but man, this is really hard to watch..even the second time you watch it. I would be so thoroughly embarassed if I was in any way attached to that guy. Not necessarily politically, but like if he was my dad, or brother, or a friend.

    I will say, I am embarrassed as an American when I think of other countries seeing this.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    I think nonviolent protests have their place. Civil right marches, anti-war marches.

    But just going out to scream at people who are trying to discuss something is different. Thats not protest, thats a denial of discussion. Very different.

    But I think we agree on most things. This wasnt ok. I'm sure the other side does things that arent ok. but man, this is really hard to watch..even the second time you watch it. I would be so thoroughly embarassed if I was in any way attached to that guy. Not necessarily politically, but like if he was my dad, or brother, or a friend.

    I will say, I am embarrassed as an American when I think of other countries seeing this.
    Well, people are free to protest whatever they want--its just not something I'm likely to do.

    I agree it is an embarrassment, but have you seen protests in other countries? They aren't pretty. Heck, there are brawls in the Legislatures of some countries.

    KAM
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    In what way has ANYTHING that has been done or being done fall into the category of socalism? I think people use the word without understanding the meaning. If you mean healthcare, there is no governement option...therefore not socialism. ONLY private insurance. Let me repeat, there is no public option.

    As to your second point....do you remember the Clinton years? He balanced the budget. And we ended up with a surplus.

    You cant just say democrats spend and tax. From the evidence, republicans spend and create deficits, democrats clean up the mess afterwards. We'll have to see how this one plays out currently.
    Hey, did you miss the part where I complimented Clinton? You and I are in agreement on the budget balancing thing. Part of how he did that was to cut govt spending in certain areas that included dramatic reforms to welfare. Counting back 10 years puts you to the end of his "pants on the ground" term. He was pretty effective and successful in his first term.

    As far as "socialism", I went to school when they still taught "civics" so I do know what it means. Ironically, if you look back a few decades, the term was commonly applied to efforts way back then as "socialized medicine". This issue has been around since WWII. It's not new, just new euphamisms. In fact, in the last several years of the debate, several members of congress have let some of the older terms slip out. If I wanted to poke around some radical-right website, I'm sure I could find a link to a video or reference. I don't want to dig that deep.
    The point is that "socialism" is about central planning and control. The lack or presence of a "public option" isn't a determining factor in defining this. But to be clear, this is what it means:

    •An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning.
    countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm

    •Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/social/docs/SS_Glossery05-15-06.rtf

    ...and from Wikipedia comes this fascinating observation:
    Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[12] defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[13]

    So, let me be charitable, and let's tell congress to stop wasting money trying to solve problems they created, and that were never intended to be addressed by government as designed by our founders.

    On another note, everyone criticized Bush for trampling on the constitution. Including me. But what is happening now makes Bush look like an amatuer. The method congress is about to use to pass the bill without a vote is just terrible. In addition to their slimy tactics, realize that they bill actually identifies a "new" right for americans.

    In my civics class we learned that it took a constitutional amendment to identify or endow rights...

    If they pass this bill, I believe that it couldn't survive a constitutional challenge.

    Finally, I wish we would elect congress the way we do jury members. Random selection, limited service, then back to the community to live with what you did. Imagine how much grief the OJ Simpson got from their neighbors when they got back home. Nothing like a little peer pressure from the neighbors to motivate better decision making... just think about that idea for a few minutes, and tell me that it doesn't make you smile...
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    ...and from Wikipedia comes this fascinating observation:
    Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[12] defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[13]
    To me, socialism is the middle ground between two extreme competing poles that can never hope to achieve their own vision. Socialism is essentially the moderate position in government and economics. Moving towards the middle isn't de facto moving towards the other, but more moving away from what is really a bind too close to a pole.. if that makes sense.
    So, let me be charitable, and let's tell congress to stop wasting money trying to solve problems they created, and that were never intended to be addressed by government as designed by our founders.
    Our founders felt that the health and welfare of our people were tantamount. If ever there's been an issue that squarely fits that purpose, it's health care. But everyone sees that differently I guess.
    On another note, everyone criticized Bush for trampling on the constitution. Including me. But what is happening now makes Bush look like an amatuer. The method congress is about to use to pass the bill without a vote is just terrible. In addition to their slimy tactics, realize that they bill actually identifies a "new" right for americans.
    The procedures being talked about have already been litigated and upheld as Constitutional. So how would it be wrong to use them?
    In my civics class we learned that it took a constitutional amendment to identify or endow rights...
    All rights are automatically granted unless legislation limits those rights. See screaming fire in a theater, etc.
    If they pass this bill, I believe that it couldn't survive a constitutional challenge.
    What part of the Constitution do you feel it would violate?
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    The Government owning Car Companies is socialistic. Owning or effectively controlling banks or other financial institutions is socialistic.



    Yes, the REPUBLICAN Congress and Democrat President together came up with a balanced budget.



    Actually Democrats do Spend. Unfortunately, so do Republicans. To say that Republicans "create deficits" is ignoring the fact that massive portions of our deficit and debt are due to programs put in place by Democrats--whether you like them or not. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.


    KAM
    You are absolutely correct. In saying that repulicans created deficits, I am specifically referring to the last 10 years. The Bush expansion of medicare prescription benefits was the largest expansion of govt healthcare since the original adoption of medicare. More proof that more govt = more debt and fewer results.

    Heck, they had to hire 11,000 people to administer the cash-for clunkers program that sold less than 800,000 cars. Also remember that the C-4-C pprogram was 300% over budget. Imagine of govt healthcare is over by 300% that would mean TRILLIONS of unplanned cost, not just billions. most of us cant even imagine the true meaning of numbers that big.

    Come on people, I want to help the poor. If I thought the current train wreck would actually produce the desired result - I'd be all for it. When was the last time the title of a bill reflected the actual results the bill produced? Just think back to the econimic Recovery Act" last year, or no-child-left-behind.

    You can safely assume the results of a new bill from congress will be the opposite of it's stated intention.

    If congress and the president wanted to actually solve the problem, they would ask americans to mobilize and actually solve the problem. Show me one event in history where a new govt program actually solved such a "crisis" as healthcare. And don't tell me it was recovery from the depression. That's an entirely different debate, and we are still funding those programs. If you add up those costs from the last 60 years, you might decide that was a little bit too expensive and probably could have been handled differently... but I digress.

    Here is an interesting view on the topoc from that radical right wing magazine called THE NEW YORKER (one of the more liberal publications by any objective measure). It correctly points out what you must remember, healthcare is just the topic being used to mobilize and manipulate the public. This is about making a revolutionary shift in the fundamentals of american structure. Congress doesn't care about results. If this was really about healthcare, americans would rise to the occasion just like we did to help New Orleans, Haiti, Indonesia, etc. Govt may provide the ships, but generous americans provide most of the money and manpower.


    Ted Kennedy and universal health care : The New Yorker
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/18/2010 at 10:43 AM.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    To me, socialism is the middle ground between two extreme competing poles that can never hope to achieve their own vision. Socialism is essentially the moderate position in government and economics. Moving towards the middle isn't de facto moving towards the other, but more moving away from what is really a bind too close to a pole.. if that makes sense.

    Our founders felt that the health and welfare of our people were tantamount. If ever there's been an issue that squarely fits that purpose, it's health care. But everyone sees that differently I guess.

    The procedures being talked about have already been litigated and upheld as Constitutional. So how would it be wrong to use them?

    All rights are automatically granted unless legislation limits those rights. See screaming fire in a theater, etc.

    What part of the Constitution do you feel it would violate?
    First, they declared that we have the right to PURSUE, not to suceed.
    Second, the current back room nonsense has never been tested before the supreme court.
    Third, rights that we have are endowed by our creator, not congress (see declaration of independance and constitution) or by amendment (see bill of rights, notice women's right to vote, etc.)

    So I believe that declaring a new "right" without following constitutional procedure and creating a mandate on the entire population is the opposite of liberty (see "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) would both lose to a constitutional challange. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. I just paid attention in Civics class. These were hot issues even back in the dark ages when I was in school (when they taught actual history, not politically correct nonsense like my kids are getting).

    I could be wrong. I'm just saying that if you get past the argument that the idea of govt healthcare will do more harm than good, you still run into those pesky constitutional restrictions that should be able to stop this train wreck.

    For the liberals about to disagree with me, keep in mind that this is EXACTLY the argument you used against Bush (and rightfully so).

    You first agrued that his methods (wiretapping, GITMO, etc) were producing the wrong results. When that didn't work, you wrapped yourself in the constitution and the protections it has against intrusive government.

    A little intellectual consistency would be something that benefits both sides of every issue.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    To me, socialism is the middle ground between two extreme competing poles that can never hope to achieve their own vision. Socialism is essentially the moderate position in government and economics. Moving towards the middle isn't de facto moving towards the other, but more moving away from what is really a bind too close to a pole.. if that makes sense.
    I don't want this to sound harsh, so I appologize in advance. This is typed in the spirit of honest debate (when I should be working...)

    The definition of socialism isn't up "to you" and the definition you provide at the beginning is an opinion. Definitions are not opinions, unless you are a relativist - in which case murder and theft can be ok because we all have our own truth...

    I pasted in definitions from authoritative sources (i.e. the dictionary). The quote from Lenin is a quote and historical fact. You might not see it the way he did, but his view was clear, his actions are documented as fact, and his results are not in dispute.

    I appreciate your view, but the original question was wether the current bill could be called socialized medicine (as it was called when I was growing up).

    The answer is yes, because socialism is defined as centralized control and planning - generally by a central government. The argument isn't with me, it's with Webster's Dictionary and the new lexicon of politically correct nonsense.

    When I was a kid, we worried about global cooling. Too many problems proving global warming (or cooling), change it to "climate change". Socialized Medicine sounds bad? change it to Universal Healthcare. That doesn't work? change it to Healthcare Reform.

    American's seem easy to fool. That's why advertising is so effective. Think that chick is hot? then drink our brand of beer. Think that guy has an athletic build? Drinking our beer gave him those muscles. Want to look successful to all your neighbors? go into major debt to buy our car...

    Let's just call this what it is, and not create our own definitions.

    ... and I appologize for how that probably sounded. I think you've had some of the more interesting thoughts. peace-out.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    legitamate claim.

    But the mroe I see, the more common these types of things appear to be within the Tea-party movement. The bigot statements from an ex republican senator (forget his name). Amazing. This video. the way they purport themselves in every single "demonstration" they show up at.


    You know, I dont want to make a link here but your reasoning reminds me of the way I feel towards muslim extremists. No, not all muslims should be hated, or treated badly because of the actions of a few extreme muslims. But if they dont step up to speak out against and squash this kind of behavior then it serves them right when they get caught up in the middle of it.

    Maybe the onus lies on other tea-party participants to say...this isnt right. I didnt see that happening and I havent seen that happen. From tea-partiers or republicans.
    I hope that you have taken the same public stand when Green Peace and PETA have done stuff like this.... let's be intellectually consistant at the very least.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    First, they declared that we have the right to PURSUE, not to suceed.
    Second, the current back room nonsense has never been tested before the supreme court.
    Third, rights that we have are endowed by our creator, not congress (see declaration of independance and constitution) or by amendment (see bill of rights, notice women's right to vote, etc.)

    So I believe that declaring a new "right" without following constitutional procedure and creating a mandate on the entire population is the opposite of liberty (see "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) would both lose to a constitutional challange. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. I just paid attention in Civics class. These were hot issues even back in the dark ages when I was in school (when they taught actual history, not politically correct nonsense like my kids are getting).
    If the issue at hand here is a "right" to health care, this is certainly not a Natural born right. While it is correct that we have essentially all rights we can think of, unless specifically restricted (Constitutionally), this does not and cannot include the right to demand something from someone else. We have the right to seek health care, not to be provided with health care at someone else's expense.

    Very simply stated, which everyone should know, your natural born rights cannot include a demand that forces someone else to provide you with something. For example--we have the right to bear arms, we do not have the right to demand that government provides us a rifle. Similarly (although not linked to a product or service), we have the right to free speech, not the right that someone else listen to us.

    What government CAN do is tax people, and theoretically, they could use that tax money for a wide variety of purposes, limited by the powers granted to them in the Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution granted the Federal Government the power to provide for individual needs for its citizens. It did however mention (although not in the specific powers section), that one purpose of the government is to "Promote the General Welfare." The operative words there are "promote" and "GENERAL." This is not at all the same as saying "provide specific support to individuals."

    KAM
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    If the issue at hand here is a "right" to health care, this is certainly not a Natural born right. While it is correct that we have essentially all rights we can think of, unless specifically restricted (Constitutionally), this does not and cannot include the right to demand something from someone else. We have the right to seek health care, not to be provided with health care at someone else's expense.

    Very simply stated, which everyone should know, your natural born rights cannot include a demand that forces someone else to provide you with something. For example--we have the right to bear arms, we do not have the right to demand that government provides us a rifle. Similarly (although not linked to a product or service), we have the right to free speech, not the right that someone else listen to us.

    What government CAN do is tax people, and theoretically, they could use that tax money for a wide variety of purposes, limited by the powers granted to them in the Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution granted the Federal Government the power to provide for individual needs for its citizens. It did however mention (although not in the specific powers section), that one purpose of the government is to "Promote the General Welfare." The operative words there are "promote" and "GENERAL." This is not at all the same as saying "provide specific support to individuals."

    KAM
    I agree with you totally. Well said, you have it exactly right. It makes me want to say "Who is John Galt?" as a send up to my 8th grade economics teacher.

    (brownie points for anyone under 35 that recognizes that reference)
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I agree with you totally. Well said, you have it exactly right. It makes me want to say "Who is John Galt?" as a send up to my 8th grade economics teacher.

    (brownie points for anyone under 35 that recognizes that reference)
    Oh, I'm guessing that MANY people under 35 (and over) have recently discovered that reference.

    KAM
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The situation was a number of demonstrators from both sides at a congresswoman's office. It's as "staged" as any demonstration. That doesn't explain the cruel taunting of someone with a medical condition. It is disgraceful but exactly typical of the right wing of this country, who have no emphathy or caring for others who are less fortunate. To compare this attitude with PETA throwing red paint on fur just shows the lack of perspective of this portion of society.
    I think you’re over-blowing this quite a bit. You don’t know what was on the sign. You don’t know what was said before the video started. Don’t you think a video taken by a group called “Think Progress” might be edited for content?

    This is pathetic behavior. And this person could very well be you, or someone in your family who might have been dropped from their insurance because of their disease. Do you think you might have a different opinion if that were the case?
    That wouldn’t be me because I wouldn’t trot my disease out in front of a camera for a political stunt.
  16. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #76  
    I was expecting to see people mocking his disease. All it was people mocking his politics, which is nothing abnormal. Both sides clearly mock each other's politics; to say anything otherwise is exercising tunnel vision or just lying.

    I mean, this topic is titled "Teabaggers mock man with Parkinson's Disease". Who's mocking who now?
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    More on the Teabaggers:

    From the Tea Party Convention, Tom Tancredo speaks about the need for a literacy test before being allowed to vote...and everyone cheers. Why doesn't he just call for the re-institution of Jim Crow Laws?????
    WOW!!! This statement is extremely telling. Can't anyone else see the problem here? What does this line of reasoning say about the liberal view of minorities? Anyone?
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    First, they declared that we have the right to PURSUE, not to suceed.
    Surely. Yet the question became how far we were willing to let someone fail. We have decided as a society that we won't let people starve to death and created the food stamp program (which had the side benefit of helping agriculture). We decided people shouldn't be homeless so we created the section 8 program (which had the side benefit of creating demand for housing). So we all generally agree that regardless of the situation, Americans shouldn't be starving or living under bridges unless they want to. There is no right to food or housing, but we have deemed it so as a society. It seems we have now come to the point where we have also deemed that a person should not die because they cannot afford medical care.

    That was kind of a long winded way to say that we as a society can decide what the lives of our poorest citizens should be maintained at without needing to go into whether they have the right to do so.
    Second, the current back room nonsense has never been tested before the supreme court.
    Perhaps I misunderstand your subject. Do you mean backroom deals as in the "Cornhusker kick back" or as in the parliamentary maneuvering?
    Third, rights that we have are endowed by our creator, not congress (see declaration of independance and constitution) or by amendment (see bill of rights, notice women's right to vote, etc.)
    I guess I take a sort of purist view there, that the rights were already there but legislatively blocked through hook and crook.
    Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV.
    I'm not either, but my wife is. I'm still constantly surprised by how it all fits together.
    I could be wrong. I'm just saying that if you get past the argument that the idea of govt healthcare will do more harm than good, you still run into those pesky constitutional restrictions that should be able to stop this train wreck.

    For the liberals about to disagree with me, keep in mind that this is EXACTLY the argument you used against Bush (and rightfully so).

    You first agrued that his methods (wiretapping, GITMO, etc) were producing the wrong results. When that didn't work, you wrapped yourself in the constitution and the protections it has against intrusive government.

    A little intellectual consistency would be something that benefits both sides of every issue.
    The Constitutionality of the two complaints are functionally different arguments and don't compare well. Wiretapping, conjuring a new status for war prisoners out of thin air so we don't have to abide by long settled legal issues, etc. speaks to an issue of whether a president can effectively suspend rights while at war. That too was long settled case law (at least we thought it was), established after Lincoln suspended Habeas and was rebuked by the courts. That Republican leadership was at one time telling us that government is not to be trusted and must be limited, all the while suspending or otherwise manipulating case law specifically intended to limit government wasn't just unconstitutional, but the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

    The question of whether our constitutional constraits afford the ability to require a service be purchased is a wholly different question, yet also is essentially settled case law. We require all citizens to purchase the service of protection and safety, vis a vis police, fire, military, food and drug inspection, transportation maintenance, etc. It seems on the surface to be different, but commercially speaking, really isn't.
    I don't want this to sound harsh, so I appologize in advance. This is typed in the spirit of honest debate (when I should be working...)
    I think it's a great discussion.
    I pasted in definitions from authoritative sources (i.e. the dictionary). The quote from Lenin is a quote and historical fact. You might not see it the way he did, but his view was clear, his actions are documented as fact, and his results are not in dispute.
    But just because Lenin said it, it doesn't make it God's honest truth. By that logic, communists moving towards socialism are de facto moving to capitalism. I just don't think that's the reality of the situation.
    I appreciate your view, but the original question was wether the current bill could be called socialized medicine (as it was called when I was growing up).

    The answer is yes, because socialism is defined as centralized control and planning - generally by a central government. The argument isn't with me, it's with Webster's Dictionary and the new lexicon of politically correct nonsense.
    Sure, but the question of "are we socialist" is a more complex issue. If we define socialism as the demand/supply curve of a major industry being controlled entirely by the central planning dictates of the government, then our military expenditures place us squarely as socialists. I think we need to look at our economic situation in sum and if we sum it up, I think we are either on the socialist side of capitalism or the extreme capitalist side of socialism. When the invariable comparisons to the Euro-style social structures come, we are clearly capitalists, even with health care socialized.

    A great conversation. Apologies for writing a tome. I'm on lunch and in wait mode for a meeting. Us damn government workers always sitting around doing nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I agree with you totally. Well said, you have it exactly right. It makes me want to say "Who is John Galt?" as a send up to my 8th grade economics teacher.

    (brownie points for anyone under 35 that recognizes that reference)
    The Fountainhead was better.
  19. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Teabaggers with their nutty Obama-is-not-American, death-panels, unplug-grandma, Obama-is-trying-to-control-the-minds-of-our-school-children BS DESERVE mocking.

    A man with Parkinson's does not.

    You, of course, may believe otherwise...
    I would agree with you if they were mocking his disease, but they were mocking his politics. That's like saying if a "teabagger" had Parkinsons, you shouldn't be able to call him a "teabagger" because he doesn't deserve mocking due to his disease.

    I understand you just want to paint all dissenters with a broad brush as horrible racist idiots, while painting the supporters with a broad brush as angelic freedom fighters, but that's not the case. There are plenty of left and right wingnuts, and plenty of honest idealists on both sides. If you want to be intellectually honest, you should use dialectic and attack the arguments, not just the people. I personally love the ideal of universal health care; I just think the current plan is too expensive and will have unintended consequences that will bring down the quality of care universally. I believe there are plenty of ways to get to the goal of expansive care without a burdensome entitlement program. Not to mention I believe this should be a state issue. I love the idea of 50 experiments; people vote with their feet a lot, rather than one experiment I can't escape. I don't pretend to have all the right answers, but I certainly have concerns about the bills in the air right now. Does that make me a "teabagger", or just a concerned citizen?

    Maybe if you spent less time researching how bad "teabaggers" are in your view, and spent more time researching how these bills will help us; you could sway more opinions to your point of view. All you're doing now is alienating people; doesn't really help your cause.

    My two cents...
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    By the way, why does PreCentral host such off-topic forum threads? I never realized they were here until I saw this thread. There are a million other places to have these discussions.

    ...just sayin...
    The Forum Section is titled "Off Topic". It's a container for all topics off-topic to PreCentral topics.

    Kinda self explanatory.
Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions